The Exodus! Did it Really Happen?

[POI]

The Bible claims an Exodus took place. Many state it was not an actual event. Since the Bible makes a positive claim, in that an 'Exodus" took place, do we have positive evidence to support the claim?

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[KUWN]

This kind of discussion is what happens when you permit spiritual, symbolic, metaphorical, and other Interpretive methods into the discussion. I use the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation of Scripture. So, when I read Gen 1-3 my first way of interpreting this passage is literal. Literalist also teach that not all passages are meant to be literally interpreted. It simply means that we FIRST interpret the text literally, if that doesn't make any sense, we would look at perhaps the metaphorical. Or the Psalms are often poetic, which is one of the methods employed by Literalist.

As far as the Exodus is concerned, it too would FIRST be interpreted literally, and if that doesn't make sense, we might use another way of interpreting a text. I believe the Exodus is to be taken literal because, as a general rule, I take the Scriptures literally. Take for an example the spiritualized interpretative method. There is no way of showing it to be a true or false interpretation. Of course, I prefer the Literal Method because I want to stand before God and be rewarded based on the literal meaning of a passage and not on some symbolic interpretation, unless the text is obviously not to be taken literally. When Jesus says he is the door, he is not saying he is a real door.

So, I can't tell you how much time I have seen debaters arguing the meaning of a passage when both parties have different Interpretive Methods. You have to first agree on the Interpretive Method. If you primarily hold to a spiritual interpretation, then you already know where a person's objections will come from. Generally, most Dispensationalist use the Literal method, and most Liberal theologians do not.

[RBD]

I was checking to see if you are consistent about what others say. You are not.

Let's see if you have a point shall we?
For the sake of this debate, I grant you that I am not consistent about what others say. Can you please tell the class what that has to do with the observations I have made about your reasoning and why it is currently being rejected?

Answering a misrepresented argument, is not answer that argument, but something misrepresented.

That's how any argument or book is analyzed wrong, but misrepresenting it.

You failed to address this:
"Yes, Allah has corrected your misunderstanding about him having a son.
When you cannot disprove this, you must believe in order to be consistent."

Answered in post 336 from 328.

Someone can choose to believe the Bible or the Koran, not both, since the author of the Koran contradicts the Author of the Bible, Who says He does have a begotten Son.

The author of the Koran contradicts himself by first saying he speaks for the God of Abraham, and then saying He is lying about having a begotten Son...

And this:
"because of faith you have placed in the Bible and the absurdity of believing in things because they haven't been disproven."

Saying we can believe in something not disproven is reasonable. Absurdity is saying we can't believe in anything not disproven. That's completely absurd.

And this:
"Something is considered "unfalsifiable" when it is impossible to prove false, meaning there is no conceivable evidence that could disprove the claim; essentially, it is a statement that cannot be tested or refuted by any means, often seen as a characteristic of pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories."

Answered in same post 336 from 328.

This also includes things of the Spirit.

It does not include physical things that can be proven false by contrary physical evidence: The Bible. Every book of record is verifiable or falsifiable...

And this:
"I was hoping for honestly presented evidence, that seeks to disprove Exodus. - RBD
Please supply evidence that Allah is not the one true God. -

See above for Mohammed can't be his true spokesman, unless Allah is the one contradicting the God of Abraham, while claiming to be the God of Abraham.

I was checking to see if you are consistent with how you arrive at things being true. You are not."

If you ever represent me consistently, then you will know how I arrive at things. It doesn't mean you will accept it, nor that I will care.

I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, other than to show all that all accusations of error with the Bible, are fraudulent or only apparent. And so, prove that any declaration the Bible can't possibly be believed, is only a personal accusation, not an objective conclusion.

[RBD]

On the subject of the Bible being, or not being evidence in itself. It is.

The Bible is what makes the claims. Claims are not evidence, therefore the Bible is not evidence for the claims it makes anymore than the Quran is evidence for the claims it makes.

You need to read up on evidentiary evidence.

Anything recorded is evidence of a claim, whether of a historical event, personal biography, building program, manpower registry, or financial account. All of which are in the Bible.

The recorded Epic of Gilgamesh and the Code of Hammurabi is evidence for what they claim. The nonsensical claim that a record is not evidence of a claim, is to say that recorded Epic is not evidence of a great flood, nor that recorded Code is not evidence of law in Babylon.

Not only is any record self-evidently evidence of a claim, but is to be accepted as true, unless other evidence proves otherwise. And in some cases, it is self-evident fact that it is true, such as the evidence of Hammurabi's Code proves there was law in Babylon during his kingship.

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

The books in the Bible were written by 40 some authors over the course of 1,500 years. That you compare this to some inscription found is unjustified and comical.

Of course it is, since it's not a inscription found, since it was never lost. (Just because we don't have the first inscription, doesn't the present inscription is not an inscription.)

You go from claiming an inscribed record is not evidence of any claim, to saying it's not an inscribed record, unless it's been lost and found? That's unjustified and incredulous.

I currently find your worship of this book to be unjustified.

I currently find your angst against this Book to be resulting in incredible redefining of evidence and inscriptions.

And I don't care what anyone thinks about my worship of the Bible Author, unless anyone thinks they can prove He's ever in error...So far, all I see is an appearance of error, that must either be interpreted that way, or has no evidence appearing at all.

Because the Bible preserves the ancient inscriptions in one Book,

You think the Bible came from previous inscriptions and not oral tradition?

You think the Bible today is the first inscription of it's record? Or, that the first inscription was not an inscription, if there was any previous oral tradition?

Was the Gilgamesh Epic and Hammurabi's code not inscribed, if they were previously talked about?

To debate such a silly thing would be to give it credit it doesn't deserve.

Tell me about it. That's on par with declaring that the evidence of an inscription is not evidence, because it claims something.

rather than on old stone, readers falsely treat it as only another book of literature, rather than the inscribed ancient record that it is.

Ask a Jew about the Old Testament. They will likely tell you that it is a story about their history and that some of it even happened.

Partial believers will likely tell themselves and others about anything they only like to believe.

It doesn't make any recorded inscription not an inscription, nor evidence of a claim.

Therefore, it's own popularity and common access is unfairly used against it, sort of like a prophet is not honored in his own country...

Son of a!!!!!! Now you want me to believe that humans can tell the future.

As with the definition of evidence and inscription, you need to take time to think about things, before getting all discombobulated!!!!!! about it.

The saying from the Bible is used as a comparison for anything homegrown, that doesn't receive it's due honor, because of it's own common knowledge. I.e. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Only a serious angst!!!!!! against the Bible would conclude someone is proselytizing for prophets, by using the very word in a well-known stated principle. Talk about living in the mind rent free...

But when someone sees an ancient encryption on stone, they trust it's veracity. They don't immediately wonder if it's true, but only what it says.

Please provide the stone or stones you are referring to that the Bible was written on and then we can compare them to these other ancient stones you bring up.

So now, we see a reason for the nonsensical definition of 'inscribed evidence', being confused with archeological finds. Which has nothing to do with inscriptions being inscribed evidence recording a claim.

An inscription is written on anything, not just in stone. And it's an ancient inscription if first written at an ancient time.

Archeology is the study of lost ancient inscriptions, that are now found. Evidentiary analysis is the study of any inscription old or new, found or never lost.

Inscriptions are inscriptions, regardless with the material used and it's age.

The Bible, Gilgamesh Epic, and Code of Hammurabi are ancient inscriptions, first written in ancient days. The fact that all of them are currently recorded on modern materials, does not make their record any less ancient, nor any less evident of ancient events.

Nor does the first material make them anything other than ancient inscribed evidence recording a claim. And if the stones of the law of Moses were found, as were those of the Epic and Code, then it would not make the ancient record of them in Exodus, anything other than what they are: Inscribed evidence recording a claim.

And speaking of Exodus, where both the exodus migration and writing of the law is inscribed on paper, anyone declaring Exodus cannot be believed pertaining to Egypt, because of no evidence in Egypt, must also declare Exodus cannot be believed pertaining to the stones of the law of Moses, because of no evidence of stone.

The Bible, like any other ancient record preserved over the millennia, should be treated like any other: Verified evidence of an ancient record.

We just don't know which parts describe events that actually happened.

Which has nothing to do with them being verified evidence of an ancient record. Whether their claims are true or not, is another argument altogether.

For example, did the dead bodies of saint get out of their graves and walk Jerusalem? Did a man live in a fish for 3 days? Did a donkey/snake speak? Did Jesus conjure up fish and loaves?

Apart from any evidence proving otherwise, why not?

Luk 5:26 And they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to day.

You MUST do better than to just point to religious promotional material and declare it as true.

You MUST do better than just point to an argument, that is not made by me. You are the one hung about about religion and proofs of truth.

To do so, you MUST rid yourself of any notion, that I care anything about your religious or irreligious beliefs, and demands for proofs of either.

I'm only arguing about the physical evidence of an ancient inscription, that can be verified or disproven, based upon the evidence within or without the ancient records of the Book. Therefore, I'm only interested in any claims, that it is in error.

I MUST objectively address those claims, not anyone's personal issues. I'm not a go-getter for the Bible, nor for the Author, but only a disciplined reviewer of the Book evidence itself, and anything else appearing to be evidence against it.

So, if you have anything contradictory about the inscribed recorded evidence of dead saints, fish, and donkeys, then bring it.

[POI]

Your entire argument is based upon Carl Sagan's coined phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But your attempted argument does not apply to this claim. I will continue to explain why, over the course of our exchange.

Please pick one:

A) You are arguing that we will find evidence someday?
B) You are arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?
C) You are flip-flopping between both A) and B)?

Neither. You are arguing from the disbeliever's demand for external evidence. The objective observer knows that external evidence is not needed to prove the evidence of a written record.

Correction. The believer knows that such a claim would leave tons of external evidence. And in regard to your given term --> "internal evidence", you have merely repurposed my OP question "Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence?". Well, we have nada. The video in post 12 alone explains why this is bad news for the Bible believer.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

No. As seen above, I also provide correction for false assumptions made by purposed disbelievers, who apparently demand answers, that they then don't care to be corrected by.

Your statement about my false assumption is a false assumption. I picked THS claim from the Bible, in particular, as a claim for 'the Exodus' would leave mound of physical evidence to address. And the fact that we have none, is more than the Christians can bare, which means you are grasping at straws to find an argument to hide behind. In this case, ironically, a skeptic's coined argument, which is not applicable for this topic.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

I acknowledge that outside evidence is not necessary to accept the available evidence. Only opposing evidence must be addressed.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

I've explained equally ad nauseum, how meaningless disbeliever's looks are to Bible inerrancy. Especially when they are looking at nothing. Such looks can't hold water, much less kill anything.

A claim as large as "The Exodus" storyline would leave physical evidence. At least to the effect of at least knowing that (millions of Israelites inhabited said land for centuries). The fact that there is no evidence to even suggest this particular claim alone is quite damming for the believer.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

Every part of the Bible is an important integral part of the Bible, which is what makes it wholly and unerringly complete. Like a picture puzzle perfectly fit together, without any missing pieces. (Unlike the missing links in human evolutionary theory...)

The claim for millions and millions of Israelites inhabiting said land for hundreds of years is completely missing. Should we:

A) argue that we will find evidence someday?
B) arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

Exhausting claims made by no evidence, is exhausting from the start.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

I don't pushback at nothing. I only dismiss conclusions based upon nothing. Which I have exhausted enough.

You pushback with Mr. Sagan's phrase, which, unfortunately for you, is not valid for this set of claims from the Bible.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

Let them search away. If they are supported to do it, then more power to them. People got to do something to make a buck, including archeologists.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is B).

If anyone finds any evidence against the Bible evidence, then I'd like to see if it is evidence indeed, or just more no-evidence wistful conclusions of pseudo-unobjective 'archeologists'.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is C).

Concluding there is no other evidence, does not conclude there is no evidence at all,

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is A).

and certainly does not conclude the available evidence can't be true...

Your use of the term 'available evidence' needs correct. You instead mean, the claim itself.

That's an irrational conclusion denying the evidence at hand,

What is irrational, is attempting to interchange the term 'available evidence' with the claim itself. We have no evidence for the claim itself. The video, in post 12, begins to explain why this is no bueno for the believer. Which is why you are attempting to hide behind Mr. Sagan's phrase here.

followed by an ideological conclusion against the only evidence available.

Again, we have no evidence. We instead have a claim. There exists no evidence for the claim. Such a claim would leave mounds of evidence.

A skeptic is objective, and needs to be convinced by more evidence. They make no conclusions otherwise.

This then means that archeology is irrational in making the conclusion that an "Exodus" likely did not happen.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is A).

A fault-finder is unobjective, and is already convinced no matter the evidence. Their conclusions are only personal, and any demand for more evidence is only thin cover for pseudo-objectivity.

Your argument here fails miserably as believing archeologists have come to (the exact same conclusion) as skeptic/agnostic/atheist archeologists.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is A).

Believers such as myself can conclude there is no more evidence than the Bible, and is unnecessary. Anyone saying they believe only the parts of the Bible proven by more evidence, is not a believer in the Bible, but only a believer in part:

You are forced to say this because you have no other play. Hence, you are for A), B), and/or C), and also mix in a false assumption phrase -- coined by Mr. Sagan.

True. As with any ancient event recorded as historical fact.

Hence, I'd say here, your answer is A).

I don't try to prove that God is, by proving that the Bible is true.

Likely because you already know the Bible does not demonstrate to be completely true and instead pivot to argue "contradiction". By manipulating what the term "contradiction" means, you can continue in your faith here --> viewtopic.php?t=42191

So long as the Bible remains unerring, then it certainly can be true, and the Author can be who He says he is, the LORD God Almighty.

This remains accomplished by using "Christian apologetics". Meaning, spin and twist, to taste. This is how one retains the faith apparently.

Whether anyone likes it or believes it, has nothing to do with the physical evidence seen in an erring Book, that can be Authored by the unseen God Himself.

And in your case, when a massive claim leaves nothing to investigate, clammer to find a loophole argument to gaslight your interlocutor.

[POI]

Which means it's not an excuse, since more evidence is not necessary.

Claims aren't evidence.

The ancient evidence of the Bible itself for Exodus, Assyria, the great flood, the Red Sea crossing on dry ground, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc... is sufficient to believe, so long as there is no evidence disproving it.

Some claims have evidence, some don't. The ones that don't, like 'the Exodus', then requires a major redirect from you. Which-is-to-mean, push Mr. Sagan's coined phrase... I won't speak to any of the other claims from the Bible, to remain on topic. And since there is no evidence for this very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence, the Bible is disproven, which means your particular flavor of a claimed God is disproven. Luckily, you have many other god claims to still explore.

Every single verse of the Bible is an all important integral of the Bible

Then the Bible can be dismissed. "An Exodus" likely never happened.

A fault finder without plain evidence to the contrary, is as someone picking at the edges of certain pieces, until they think they've made one unfit for use, and so condemn the picture as a whole...

A massive claim, which would leave tons of evidence to find, would be found. But since there is no evidence found, for this massive claim, instead push a "deepity".

Is because no one can focus on Assyria and remain a skeptic, and so someone must keep their focus only on Exodus of Egypt to remain an antagonist...

Please note what you said above, more than once --> "Every single verse of the Bible is an all important integral of the Bible".. Is your play here to select A), B), or C), from my given prior response? I'd say A)?

All recorded claims on earth are evidence that can be investigated.

Claims and evidence are not one-in-the-same, at all. "The Exodus" is the claim. Fin!

Proving the Bible by proper study, is not about proving it's true. It's proof-reading for errors, that proves it certainly can be true, when no error is found.

This is what you have to tell yourself when a very large claim, which would leave tons of evidence, instead leaves no evidence.

"Life is full of would've, could've, should've..." Some would say get over it, and deal with what is present, rather than what is not.

Oh! My turn,,, If "ifs and but were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas." The Exodus would leave evidence, if it had actually happened.

There is an objective skeptic, not an antagonist, who has already agreed that the other 'event' (If that's what someone wants to call the whole Assyrian Empire), debunks any rationale for conclusions about the Bible record, based upon no other evidence...

Each claim stands or falls upon its own merits. We have no evidence for millions and millions of Israelites inhabiting a space for centuries likely because they were never there during the said timeframe. This is the conclusion of ANY skeptic -- (believer or not), not just the antagonist.

So, let them search away in Egypt as well, if they have the funds. It still remains that other evidence than the Bible record itself, is unnecessary to prove it's true. The Bible evidence for Assyria was just as true, before any other evidence was found.

You haven't answered my question. Allow me to try again... Is there actual evidence to find, or not?

The only other evidence that matters to the truth, is evidence that the record can't be true.

Correction, some claims would leave evidence. This claim would be one of them. All you continue to produce are excuses as to why we have no evidence to the claim.

Not skeptics, only antagonists. Skeptics rationally withhold judgment for more evidence. Antagonists irrationally judge something false without evidence to the contrary.

Your pushback here does not focus solely on "antagonists", but also Bible believers. Please try another argument. This one has been debunked.

Many Bible skeptics ceased their skepticism after more evidence of Assyria was found. They objectively concluded that the Bible could also be right elsewhere, that no other evidence was found. Antagonists simply now keep their unfounded accusations confined to Exodus of Egypt.

And yet, these same folks still conclude that 'the Exodus' is not a real event. Again, please stop using this failed argument.

Bible unbelievers are not Bible believers. Only Bible believers are Bible believers.

Believers of the Torah have to admit that 'The Exodus" probably did not happen. Hence, they will pivot accordingly. You, instead, argue a false premise, in the coined Mr. Sagan slogan. I guess you do what you gotta do...

Believing only parts of a book, as someone likes, is not a believer in the book...

This is why I say these believers, while knowing "the Exodus" really did not happen, pivot accordingly. Welcome to "Christian apologetics."

Skeptics do not make conclusions based upon no evidence,

Tell this to all the archeologists who conclude 'the Exodus' most likely did not happen. The ones that insist that it still happened anyways, insist instead based upon empty slogans, special pleading and other fallacious arguments, and blind faith.

nor do they call it 'gaslighting' to say it's irrational to make conclusions without evidence. Only personal antagonists conclude something is false without the evidence to prove it. And so, they take it personal when told it's irrational to do so, as though the self-evident is 'gaslighting'. There are plenty of antagonists that say something is false, and don't care if it's rational or not. That's why the purpose here is only to expose the antagonists without evidence, who also want to claim that's rational...

You just double downed on the gaslighting. See my many responses above....

Since likeliness based upon personal conclusions without evidence, is meaningless, there is no now what?. Unless it's to conclude further argument is just as meaningless. Whether it's scholarly consensus, or rallying the personal opinions of unbelievers, it's senseless to conclude anything from no other evidence, especially after such antagonism is already proven wrong elsewhere, and thus irrational.

As a logical and rational skeptic, I understand that no claim is 100% certainly concluded -- even by evidence. In the case for "the Exodus", certainty is about as high as it can get -- that it probably did not happen. The video in post 12 begins to explain why.

Not all of the Bible can be proven, which is why it doesn't need to be proven to be believed. Only evidence proving the contrary can affect objective belief or skepticism.

The fact we have no evidence to support this claim is proof that this very large claim is probably false. Sorry. Game over.

[POI]

This kind of discussion is what happens when you permit spiritual, symbolic, metaphorical, and other Interpretive methods into the discussion. I use the literal, grammatical, historical method of interpretation of Scripture. So, when I read Gen 1-3 my first way of interpreting this passage is literal. Literalist also teach that not all passages are meant to be literally interpreted. It simply means that we FIRST interpret the text literally, if that doesn't make any sense, we would look at perhaps the metaphorical. Or the Psalms are often poetic, which is one of the methods employed by Literalist.

As far as the Exodus is concerned, it too would FIRST be interpreted literally, and if that doesn't make sense, we might use another way of interpreting a text. I believe the Exodus is to be taken literal because, as a general rule, I take the Scriptures literally. Take for an example the spiritualized interpretative method. There is no way of showing it to be a true or false interpretation. Of course, I prefer the Literal Method because I want to stand before God and be rewarded based on the literal meaning of a passage and not on some symbolic interpretation, unless the text is obviously not to be taken literally. When Jesus says he is the door, he is not saying he is a real door.

So, I can't tell you how much time I have seen debaters arguing the meaning of a passage when both parties have different Interpretive Methods. You have to first agree on the Interpretive Method. If you primarily hold to a spiritual interpretation, then you already know where a person's objections will come from. Generally, most Dispensationalist use the Literal method, and most Liberal theologians do not.

For Debate:

1. Outside the Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

2. If it should turn out that the Exodus did not take place, does this fact sway the Christian believer's position at all? Or, does it not matter one way or another?

[POI]

You need to read up on evidentiary evidence.

Examples of evidentiary evidence include witness testimony, documents, photographs, and other physical objects that can be used to prove or disprove a claim. In regard to "the Exodus", this originates from the Bible. The Bible is what is in question here. The Bible produces the claims. You might want to claim this itself is the "'internal evidence", as it is a single document making the actual claim/statement. If this is how low you wish to go, in regard to standard(s) of evidence, then any/all (claims/statements) from any competing holy text also provides "internal evidence", simply because it makes the claim. Then, all of a sudden, we have tons of "internal evidence(s)" from many alternative holy books in which you somehow reject.

Alternatively, if all we had was one ancient holy document -- who mentioned an "Alexander the Great", then we are to look for actual evidence to substantiate this claim/statement. However, we basically now know "Alexander the Great" conquered territories through a combination of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and the lasting impact of his conquests. We have none of this for the massive claim made by the Bible. It's funny how one might want to pick and choose their standard(s) for evidence, based upon convenience. A claim is a claim. That's all. If all we had was one ancient holy book mentioning an "Alexander", who was said to conquer territories --- etc etc etc, and archeology searched high and low to substantiate such a claim, and never found anything at all - in the places it was said to look, I'm willing to bet you and I would reach the same conclusion as the archeologists. Unless you might also want to argue that God hide them to increase faith, or other... I doubt your chosen Carl Sagan slogan would cut the mustard here.

[KUWN]

For Debate:

1. Outside the miraculous Bible saying so, do we have evidence? If so, what?

To put the question in perspective, you are asking about a Bible that can show it records prophetic miracles and, therefore, it has no human explanation to account for its source. No human can make hundreds of prophecies and get each one right. For an example, Daniel 9 foretells the time of Christ's death to the very week. Again, there is no human explanation to explain this accuracy. The Bible is self-authenticating as to its origin. So don't let liberals cause you to doubt.

[RBD]

The Bible is a written record as ancient as any inscription. All such inscriptions are normally presumed true, and used as evidence of historical fact, unless independently proven untrue.

Can you find a historian that claims this?

Rephrase.

All inscriptions are evidence of something inscribed about. They don't need 'other' evidence to be evidence of something inscribed.

The inscribed Epic of Gilgamesh is physical evidence claiming a great flood. The inscribed Code of Hammurabi is physical evidence claiming law in early Babylon. The inscribed Bible is physical evidence claiming many more such things.

Saying there is no evidence for Bible claims, is to deny the physical Book exists. If there is no other physical evidence of those claims, does not mean there is no evidence for them: The Bible is recorded evidence.

People call it Bible evidence for... for..., or evidence in the Bible of...

Even people saying the Bible contradicts itself, say that there is evidence for it in the Bible. The Bible can't have evidence in it, that it errs, if the Bible is no evidence of anything.

Is the Enuma Elish presumed true unless independently proven untrue? How about the Sumerian King List? There's no evidence disproving either one, yet historians consider both to be largely mythical or legendary.

'Historians consider' is called educated guesswork, which is just as valid as 'scholarly consensus'. I.e. it's only what some scholars believe. Faith, not fact.

Without provable conclusions, the 'educated' faith of scholars is no more valid than that of others, that educate themselves in the same thing.

The principle remains the same, that recorded evidence can be believed or not, unless internal or external evidence proves otherwise. In any case, the inscribed record is evidence, whether of historical fact, legend, or mythology...

From informed choice to accept what is not disproven in one case, to informed choice not to accept what is not disproven elsewhere.

Informed by what? Your argument, the paint with which you're painting yourself into the corner, is that a lack of evidence, even when we would expect it, isn't evidence of anything. If a lack of evidence is meaningless, then with what are you informing your intelligent choice?

See above about lack of other evidence, does not make the evidence at hand, not evidence.

My educated faith in the Bible is from Bible evidence, that is not contradicted by any other evidence. I could also say over time, that there is a larger scholarly consensus for it's inerrancy, than against it. But of course, that doesn't prove it's true, but only possibly true.

However, no educated person can say it can't possibly be true, without first proving contradictory evidence within the Bible.

Once again, it's not about proving what must be accepted and believed as true, but only what is believable and so also acceptable.

If you look in the refrigerator and it's empty, is it nonetheless believable or acceptable that a turkey dinner is in there? After all, lack of evidence isn't meaningful, right?

The evidence of a refrigerator certainly means a refrigerator is there. And the Bible is not empty. It's a full refrigerator with evidence of food that is meat and drink indeed, that lasts forever.

Because you're only fixated on disbelieving one thing, then you have no objectivity in the argument.

There's that projection again.

Correction accepted. One does not have to result in the other. I am fixated on believing one thing, and yet I pursue objectivity in the argument. So can anyone fixated on disbelieving it. Therefore, objectivity with the evidence at hand, can only be proven by how it is handled, which is a judgment call.

You are a challenging debater, that is enough for me to stick with it.

By your perverse logic, only those Bible believers, that also believe in leprechauns and other fae-folk, can be 'consistent'.

Ah, yes. The perversity of logic.

I also withdraw derogatory personal inferences.

I'll rephrase. By the logic you use, if we can believe something, because it is not disproven, then we must believe all things no unproven.

That's not true. We can believe all things, if they are not unproven, but we don't have to...The liberty to believe something, that is not disproven, is not a mandate.

Under that doctrine of 'faith', anyone believing in faeries, unicorns, centaurs, etc... that are not disproven, must also believe the Bible.

If that's a stated reason, then yes. If "not disproven" is a valid reason for intelligent people to believe in something, then leprechaun believers should also believe the Bible stories, believe in Santa Claus, and believe that there's a tiger in their bedroom.

See above. There is no mandate to believe something, just because it's possible.

I choose to believe the Bible is true, because I can without contradiction. I can believe in fae-folk without contradiction, but I don't choose to.

Do you believe in leprechauns, or discount them as mere Irish fantasy?

They're mere Irish fantasy.

Just don't tell them that in Ireland. Especially when the whiskey flows...

Choosing to believe something that is not disproven, does not mean all things not disproven, must be believed.

So, if the presence, absence, and quality of evidence aren't the salient factors,

Now you are getting closer to the point. You are now speaking of what is in the Bible as evidence. Some speak of Bible evidence for this or that, and others may say there is evidence in the Bible of error.

how do you distinguish between whether to believe in the Bible stories compared to, say, whether or not there's a tiger in your bedroom?

Because I read the Bible in my bedroom. I do not see nor touch a tiger there.

And so far as the Bible being it's own evidence. A roar of a tiger is evidence that it roars, so with the words in the Bible. Whether anyone believes what is roared or not, is irrelevant to the evidence in the Bible, that it roars.

Joe 3:16The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to KUWN in post #388]

For an example, Daniel 9 foretells the time of Christ's death to the very week.

"By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of |seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, |i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ranslation