You showed your evidence for A god existing. Not YOUR god existing. The difference is tremendous. You can YouTube the names of your arguments and watch people rip them to shreds.

Personal experience isn't evidence for your god. You don't accept the personal experiences of Mormons as evidence. Why should anyone consider your personal experiences to be better evidence than theirs? Either they are both evidence showing that it's poor evidence because it points you in hundreds of directions all mutually exclusive, or it isn't evidence. (There are hundreds of religions)

Thank you for bringing this up. It's quite possible we have already covered this. You are incorrect on both counts. I start with the evidences, and make the conclusions later.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God based on evidence and experience. First come the evidences, then come the experiences that corroborate the evidences, and last come the conclusions, "Therefore, I believe the Bible is the Word of God." So also with God, as I know I have already covered the with you. There are about 12 logical arguments and evidences that God exists, and my experiences corroborate those evidences, and on the basis of those arguments, evidences, and experiences, I believe that God exists.

I have already shown you the evidences about both, about which you disagreed with me. That means we see the same evidences and arrive at different conclusions, not that I start with the assumption that God exists and the Bible is the Word of God. I start with the logic, the evidences, and the experiences; the conclusions come after.

Here is the bottom line problem. Your interpretation method fundamentally starts with the assumption that the Bible is the word of god. You can't use that assumption until you show that it's true. Show me solid evidence enough to convince any reasonable historian or scientist that your god exists and that the Bible is the word of god.

> The Bible must be compared to actual truth, not what the people at the time thought was true.

I agree with this to some extent. Truth is what matters—I agree with that. But accommodation is an important principle of communication. We have to speak in a way that our audience understands what we are saying. We have to use terms, concepts, and understandings that build bridges, not create obfuscation. But that doesn't mean we can just say whatever we want and distort facts to our heart's content, justifying it by "accommodation." There always has to be a strong sense of truth. Accommodation occurs specifically in the use of human words and concepts for the communication of the law and the gospel, but it in no way implies the loss of truth or the lessening of scriptural authority. But even though God accommodates the communicator and his audience in the trappings and framework of what he says (the words he uses), he will not accommodate an erroneous intention (prophecy, blessing, cursing, etc.) on the part of the human communicator. God may well accommodate the human communicator’s view that the earth is the center of the cosmos. But if God’s intention is not to communicate truth about cosmic geography, that accommodation is simply part of the shape of the words and phrases—it is incidental, not part of God’s meaning or intent. In contrast, God will not accommodate a communicator’s belief that there was an exodus from Egypt and speak of it as a reality if it never happened. God will accommodate limited understanding for the sake of communication—that is simply part of accommodation in the words and phrases. But he would maintain that he will not communicate about how he worked in events (e.g., the exodus) or through people (e.g., Abraham) if those events never took place and those people never existed. Such accommodation would falsify his intent and meaning and invalidate its reliability. Authority is linked to the intent and meaning. Consequently there is a higher incidence of accommodation in the words used; that is entirely normal and expected. Authority is not vested independently in the words, and communication could not take place without such accommodation. In contrast, that which comes with authority (the intent and meaning) may involve accommodation to language and culture, but will not affirm that which is patently false.

>They would likely not have looked at the Genesis account of creation and interpreted it as allegory.

I agree and, for the 3rd time, I don't interpret it as allegory, either.

> They would have interpreted it as actually accurate to reality.

They would have interpreted it the way they interpret any temple text, something we know nothing about in our day and time.

>The Bible must be read in the context of its culture, not ours.
The Bible must be compared to actual truth, not what the people at the time thought was true. If the Bible is said to be actually accurate and actually true to actual reality rather than just what the people at the time thought, it must be compared to actual reality. If the book is just accurate to the culture and ideas at the time and not actual reality, it can't be used to back up a claim of actual reality and fact. Instead, it can only be used to back up a claim that something is what people at the time thought was true but maybe wasn't. You can't assess the Bible just against what people thought at the time and then based on it matching the incorrect beliefs at the time claim that it must be actually correct in it's claims on the things that can't be verified in any way. The people at the time would likely have thought that that lands surrounding them was the entire world. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation is that they thought the Bible was actually accurate in all of it's claims (yes, even the way that it claims the universe started). They would likely not have looked at the Genesis account of creation and interpreted it as allegory. They would have interpreted it as actually accurate to reality. You can say that that's fine since it was true to what they thought was true, but then you are just backing up the idea that the Bible is just what people at the time thought was true whether it was true or not. Keep in mind, the Bible claims to be true in it's entirety, not just the claims about an after life that can't be tested.

>We've already been through this. There is no evidence except that of an uncorroboratable historical record (Ex. 3). The primary evidence we have is circumstantial and by inference:
Your "evidence" is weak. VERY weak. Moses had plenty of motivation to return to Egypt and set himself up as a leader. Power? Control? These are potent motivators! As for an inadequate means of doing it, that didn't stop Joseph Smith! As for your last point, you even admit that you don't have much of a point there. I'm sorry, but your evidence is flimsy at best and what you are trying to prop up is an extroardianry claim. What do you do when someone makes an extradinary claim and their "evidence" is circumstantial and thin even for circumstantial "evidence" at that?

>There is none of this specific incident. Nor is there evidence that anyone ever saw anything. Sight leaves behind no material evidence. Sight is pure visual perception.
What do you do when someone makes a claim and they have no evidence to back it up?

I'm sorry, but you've interpreted the Bible so completely differently than what people at the time would have interpreted it to mean and differently from what almost any Christian interprets it. They would have thought that the claims in the Bible were literally true. They didn't mean local flood. The entire point of bringing two of every species was so that they could repopulate the earth! I'm sorry, but the interpretation that you are presenting here beggars belief.

> It meant all the earth.

There's a sign in front of our local grocery store that reads "No Standing". Someone 3,000 years might find it and claim "No Standing" means no standing. But we know that's not what it means. We know it means you can't park there. Assumptions about simple language are not always so simple.

In my office there is a door with a sign that reads, "This door is to be kept closed at all time." Simple language, right? Nope. That's not what it means. It means the door isn't to be propped open.

I have shown you from comparative texts that "all the earth" doesn't mean "all the earth," that "covered" can means lots of things (my arm was covered with mosquitoes today), and that they had a completely different understanding of "high mountains" than we do. The Bible must be read in the context of its culture, not ours.

> Present solid evidence that Moses saw a burning bush.

We've already been through this. There is no evidence except that of an uncorroboratable historical record (Ex. 3). The primary evidence we have is circumstantial and by inference:

1. Moses had little motivation to return to Egypt.
2. Moses had negligible reason to set himself up as leader of the people of Israel.
3. Moses had an inadequate means of pulling off this whole storyline without what seemed to him a legitimate theophany and palpable help in doing it, which he certainly wouldn't get from the people).
4. There is little way to explain the Exodus of Israel from Egypt without something abnormal happening. But since the Exodus itself has little historical corroboration, this point doesn't get us far.

> Present solid evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

We've already been through this. I might refer you to the "Resurrection of Christ" forum on the website for lengthy discussions of the resurrection.

[url]viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10886[/url]
[url]viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10490[/url]

> Present solid evidence that Jesus was seen by 500+ people after his death

There is none of this specific incident. Nor is there evidence that anyone ever saw anything. Sight leaves behind no material evidence. Sight is pure visual perception.

It would seem to be that we are repeating ourselves in this conversation, which is usually a sign that the conversation isn't progressing to a positive end. Perhaps it's not productive to continue, but it's up to you.

You can always desperately search for some way to claim that the Bible doesn't really claim what it clearly says. That's mostly what our discussions have been. You running away from MANY MANY claims of the Bible while I try to hold you to them. If you work hard enough you can find ways to claim that the Bible doesn't make any of the claims it so clearly makes. There are those that have found a way to read the Bible where it doesn't claim that Hell exists, and it doesn't claim that we don't need to be believe in Jesus. 99% of the people who've read the Bible would conclude that it meant a world wide flood. As usual, you are contorting yourself into pretzels to say that the Bible doesn't say what it says. If your Bible is so contorted that even among those that Believe in it, virtually no one can possibly hope to read it right, I can't hold that much confidence in ANY interpretation of it. \

>What does "all" mean (in that it covered "all" the earth)? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" in this context means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.
It meant all the earth. The people who wrote it, being primitive man not being influenced by any deity, didn't know about Brazil or Australia. The people at that time would have thought of "all the earth" to mean ALL OF THE EARTH. They simply didn't know about all of the earth. I am interpreting it as it would have been interpreted by the people at that time.

>Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others. Here in this context "all the nations under heaven" means the nations of Canaan.
Same deal. Once again we see that the Bible is just the thoughts of people at the time. Once gain we see that the author isn't an all knowing deity that knows about Australia and other things. We just see primitive man that knows nothing about anything except the lands within traveling range and thinking that this is all of the earth.

>You haven't asked me to show anything else.
I apologize for that. Present solid evidence that Moses saw a burning bush. Present solid evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Present solid evidence that he was seen by 500+ people after his death. Present solid evidence that Moses parted the Red Sea. That should be enough for a start.

>If you are sincere about this, then please measure all of the Bible in its depth, not just a superficial and partial reading of it. You'll come to a radically different conclusion.
The bible claims to be true in it's entirety(Psalm 119:160). If a book simply claims to be a decent book, then that's the bar it must meet. To be a decent book with most of it's facts reasonably close to right. When a book claims to be the word of god and true in it's entirety, then that's the bar. I measure the book against that staggeringly high bar because that's the bar for any book at claims to be the word of god correct in it's entirety which anyone is evil if they don't having seen it, accept it's claims. Against that standard, it fails. The fact that it contains errors means that it doesn't measure up to it's claims. The fact that it contains errors means that a claim should not be accepted simply because it's in the Bible.

> The Flood: The Bible says it was global.

What does "all" mean (in that it covered "all" the earth)? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" in this context means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others. Here in this context "all the nations under heaven" means the nations of Canaan.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global". It doesn't mean the Bible contains errors. It means we have to read it using our brains and not just assume the superficial meaning is the only possibility.

Also, the flood didn't have to be global to accomplish God's purposes. God was dealing with Canaan and the surrounding neighbors. God was dealing with Noah's context. A flood in South America would be totally inexplicable to the people there, as well as patently unfair (which the Bible teaches that God is not). Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but not to the people of Africa, China, Australia, and the Americas. The language of the Noah story is normal for Scripture, describing everyday matters from the narrator's vantage point and within the customary frame of reference of his readers.

But what about "covering all the mountains"? Again, a little detective work (rather than superficial reading) can be of value. First of all, in the ancient world the high mountains were not generally considered mountains, but pillars holding up the firmament. As I've said before, we have to discern what the author meant by what he wrote. When they talk about mountains, they are referring to the local geological shapes, not the Alps and Himalayas. And what does "cover" mean? The Hebrew root is [i]ksh[/i], and is used in a wide variety of nuances:

- A people so vast they "cover" the land (Num. 22.11)
- Weeds "cover" the land (Prov. 24.31)
- clothing (1 Ki. 1.1)
- Overshadowed (2 Chr. 5.8; Ps. 147.8)

In Job 38.34; Jer. 46.8; Mal. 2.13, "covered" is figurative. If Gn. 7.19 is read in the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it doesn't demand they were submerged.

What about "15 cubits above" (Gn. 7.20)? The Hebrew reads "15 cubits [i]from above[/i] ([i]milme'la[/i]) rose the waters, and the mountains were covered." It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose 15 cubits higher than the mountains. It can mean "above"; it can mean "upward" or “upstream". If this were the case in Genesis, it would suggest that the water reached 15 cubits upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.

What about all the animals dying? Again, we have to define "all", but based on what I previously said, it could easily refer to "all" the ones within the scope of the flood, not necessarily global destruction. Again, look at Gn. 2.13, where the river "winds through all (same word as Gn. 7.21) the land of Cush." Does it mean every square inch of it? Most certainly not.

Genesis 7.22 says, "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." I know this could have been expressed in multiple ways, but I don't fault the writer to choosing what he did. "All" not only denotes the scope of the physical flood for the intended population, but it can also connote the completeness of the judgment. If he had said something like "as far as the eye could see" it might be assumed that the judgment was less than accomplished. That wording would have been less adequate for the situation, in my opinion. to point was to express the completeness of the judgment on the target audience, and "all" expresses that, though it obviously leads to other misunderstandings as well. We do have to entertain the thought that the ancients understood quite well the intent of the text, but through the millennia it got lost in "Enlightenment literalism", and we are the victims of the misunderstanding. It's time to get back to seeing the event through ancient eyes.

Besides, we have to look at a few other things.

1. A global flood is totally out of character with all of God's other miracles in the Bible. It's not His m.o.. It's not the way he does things, and it doesn't fit His pattern of working.

2. A global flood is unjust, and God is not unjust. What fits the Biblical description of God is that God judged the people who were worthy of judgment, who had been warned, and who had adequate opportunities to change their ways. A global flood doesn't fit this picture.

I hope that helps.

> At best you can show that a guy named Jesus was real.

You haven't asked me to show anything else.

> More importantly though, the Bible contains errors when it says it doesn't.

No it doesn't, as per our dozens of conversations. It seems you won't let go of a perspective despite evidence to the contrary.

> I'm measuring the Bible against it's own claim.

If you are sincere about this, then please measure all of the Bible in its depth, not just a superficial and partial reading of it. You'll come to a radically different conclusion.

>You're right, I believe it was massively regional, not global.
The bible says it was global. The Bible also says it's correct in it's entirety (Psalm 119:160). That's it. Sorry, but the Bible contains errors and that shows that it isn't the perfect inerrant word of god as it claims to be. The bible says it is inerrant. It contains an error. Therefore, your Bible is unreliable and the only reasonable conclusion is that your religion is false.

Your arguments have been lacking. Your evidence hasn't shown any of your super natural claims to be true. At best you can show that a guy named Jesus was real. More importantly though, the Bible contains errors when it says it doesn't. Therefore the entire book must be thrown out. That's the way it goes once you claim your book to be the word of god. If it says it has no errors (true in it's entirity) then it has to be true in every way or it isn't the word of god. I'm measuring the Bible against it's own claim. The people of that era would have understood what it meant to say that something was true. They would have understood that verse to mean that the Bible was entirely true, not just the parts that are talking about magic.

> If that's all you've got, then you haven't shown your claims about him to be true and therefore logically the claims should be rejected. We have just as good of evidence for Mohammed.

All you claimed was that "There exists no record from the time period in which Jesus supposedly existed referencing a Jesus," and I was showing you to be wrong. If you're looking for something other than that, you need to say so.

> I'm saying you can't claim that a lack of bias shows that your claims are true.

I agree with this. Even with a lack of bias a work can be fictional. But this is not a point to build a case on, and I'm not even sure what your case is.

> I mean, all of these big events witnessed by so many people and all we've got is something showing up 65 years after Jesus's death? That's a bit... lacking don't you think?

Not at all. Let's see...65 years takes us back to 1952. That's pretty easy. Dwight Eisenhower as President. There are still lots of people alive who were around in 1952. We still have written records from the era, eyewitnesses of events, and people who were instrumental in those events. It's pretty easy to recapture the events of 1952.

But besides, just because the first extant written remains date to 65 years shows that the works themselves were [i]prior[/i] to that. The records get even closer than 65 years, and a vast majority of scholars say a text like 1 Cor. 15.3-7 reliably takes us back to within 2-5 years of Jesus' death. It's not a bit lacking at all. We have people still alive who can speak quite cogently about JFK's presidency, his assassination, LBJ, the Vietnam War, Nixon, Watergate, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, etc. etc. This is easy. We have no reason to doubt the Gospel records just because they were written 30 years after Jesus.

> Genesis 1-2: Does the bible say that I should take this as an allegory?

I didn't say it was an allegory, nor do I think it's allegory. Please read more carefully.

> Given that we have no solid evidence of a supernatural resurrection

We do. Please read the sections to which I previously referred you.

> Noah's flood

You're right, I believe it was massively regional, not global.

> Do you really have enough evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible to justify a high degree of confidence in it's claims that you believe in?

I'm confident we do, or I wouldn't be a Christian. I explained to you why I regarded the Bible as true, I have given you evidences for the existence of God, and I have referred you to arguments about the resurrection of Christ. To me the evidence is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.