Is The Bible Evidence Of Anything?

[Viktor]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

 

[Anomalism]

Evidence for God based on witness testimony.

 

[Penelope]

They are not under oath.

 

[Augustine_]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

It's evidence for some historical events that happened. Not for the magical nonsense that the ancient primitives believed was behind it all.

 

[jehanne1431]

Is The Bible Evidence Of Anything?​

Not for those who do not want it to be. No matter. Many well documented miracles are the evidence for what is in the Bible. On that they stumble.

 

[Viktor]

Not for those who do not want it to be. No matter. Many well documented miracles are the evidence for what is in the Bible. On that they stumble.

In law, there is a difference between admissable evidence and how persuasive that evidence is to a jury. Not all evidence must be persuasive.

 

[Augustine_]

Many well documented miracles are the evidence for what is in the Bible.

 

[jehanne1431]

You evoke pity... as you go whistling past the graveyard.

 

[Augustine_]

You evoke pity... as you go whistling past the graveyard.

Careful, the magical being doesn't like you saying things like that to people

 

[JoeBlow]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

It's well known that the bible was written at least several generations after Jesus died. Until then, it was word of mouth, oral history. Not the most conclusive evidence.

 

[Viktor]

It's well known that the bible was written at least several generations after Jesus died. Until then, it was word of mouth, oral history. Not the most conclusive evidence.

Historians accept oral testimony and so do courts. You are wrong about Jesus.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

www.theguardian.com

 

[TeeDub]

Careful, the magical being doesn't like you saying things like that to people

I really hope you are very surprised when you die. Ass.

 

[Likkmee]

IT'S A DECLARATION OF THE HUMAN RACE BEING A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES FROM THE GIT-GO

 

[Augustine_]

I really hope you are very surprised when you die. Ass.

And I hope if there turns out to be a god it's a worthy one instead of the one you've chosen to worship

 

[Likkmee]

First you had Adamn and Eve. Eve sucked up the BS and Adam didn't want to be alone so he ate the fruit so he could go too.
Then Cain was a jealous motherfucker and wasted his own brother. They all got booted from"wherever special" and continued to breed and create fuckups fo aa long long time. God said fuckem and flooded the whole damn place. The aftermath created more assholes so God created one like himself as a sacrifice and be explainer of his will.
The fuckups came back.
They're everywhere now. Time for round 3
It shall be as it was in the days of Noah. Lotta blood. Not even the son knows the day or the hour.
Sorry for ruling out your idiotic trinitarian belief system guys wearing robes tell you on the first day of the week(Sunday)

 

[DudleySmith]

It's well known that the bible was written at least several generations after Jesus died. Until then, it was word of mouth, oral history. Not the most conclusive evidence.

Rubbish. It was 'written' in the times it portrays, as textual analysis conclusively proves; there are no anachronisms at all, and the places and social situations and politics are all 100% contemporary with the times. This would not be possible if it was all fabricated several generations later, or by Constantine hundreds of years later, as some particularly stupid loons keep trying to peddle. The ortodox version is indeed the original and correct version; there are too many crosschecks and copies around to compare to, and anyone trying to rewrite anyting in it wou;d have been laughed at and marginalized, no matter who they were. They were not cowards and easily cowed or bullied, not even by Roman Emperors or anybody else, even under torture.

 

[DudleySmith]

And I hope if there turns out to be a god it's a worthy one instead of the one you've chosen to worship

oh, pipe down, faggot. You sickassed deviants lose literally every time you try and bloviate your stupid nonsense here.

 

[Augustine_]

oh, pipe down, faggot. You sickassed deviants lose literally every time you try and bloviate your stupid nonsense here.

Uh oh I'm going to tell your magic being that you said sinful words

 

[jehanne1431]

In law, there is a difference between admissable evidence and how persuasive that evidence is to a jury. Not all evidence must be persuasive.

The Bible and the Christian God is proven not based on one or two facts or claims, it is based on a preponderance of evidence --- and pure reason. Empirical evidence, that is. Those things which cannot be explained by science or nature's laws. Scoffers have a tendency to dismiss those "incongruities" and still proclaim "no sign of God, ever."

"Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural." -- Chesterton.

 

[DudleySmith]

Uh oh I'm going to tell your magic being that you said sinful words

Go ahead; it's not like anyone takes your rubbish seriously.