The Good in Bad Science

[nPeace]

I see that you are not a student of the Bible. Nor of reality. What part or parts of the Bible do you think are eye witness stories?

Since you, an atheist, is a better student of the Bible, than any Christian, then surely you must know that the creative works were witnessed by the sons of God, chief among them, the one that left heaven and came to earth.
What is written is verified by scientific discovery.
This is due to the fact that the creator had the historical recorded, in some detail.
Of course you knew that.

There were many other eyewitness accounts, which any Bible student would know... of course.

 

[gnostic]

When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

Wrong.

Eyewitnesses and testimonial evidences, alone, are not the best evidences in history.

The best evidences come from where archaeological evidences meet with contemporary historical documents.

The gospels were originally anonymously, and at least one generation with one gospel (gospel of Mark, circa 75 CE), but 2 generations (c 80-90 CE, of Matthew and Luke) and 3 generations for John (95-105 CE).

Names were ascribed to these authors around mid-2nd century CE.

The words “ascribed” and “attributed” mean the names were given to written works that were written anonymously. Meaning we have no ways of knowing who the REAL AUTHORS were.

None of the works were written at the times of Jesus’ ministry, and certainly not of them (more specifically those attributed to Matthew and Luke) were contemporary to Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth and wrote them down as eyewitnesses. In the Luke’s gospel, it would seem that the anonymous author was writing from Mary’s point of view, while that of Matthew’s from Joseph’s.

How can that be, when Joseph most likely have died years before Jesus’ ministry started? There is no way for the author (to Matthew’s gospel) to interview Joseph 85-90 years later.

The descriptions on the Crucifixion is also suspiciously made up instead of being witnessed.

Everyone know - modern historians and scholars - that nail spikes are never nailed at the palms, but to the forearms behind the wrists. The bodies are meant to stay up on the wooden props or the crosses for days, so the weights of bodies would not hold up if they were nailed on the palms of the hand.

And that’s another thing, the Romans keep crucified people on the crosses for days. They don’t take them down if they died on the same day they were crucified for burials.

And the Romans also break everyone’s legs regardless if they were alive or dead.

Crucified people were never given exception, because it is never Roman policy for such executions to be merciful. That all gospels narratives on the Crucifixion demonstrated that none of them have seen real crucifixion taking place by Roman soldiers.

And that another thing, in time of peace, the Roman governor, whether he be prefect or procurator of Judaea, like Pontius Pilate, wouldn’t have Roman soldiers, like legionaries, at his command; no he would only command auxiliary infantrymen and cavalrymen.

Roman legions were stationed in Syria, under the command of proconsular legates, in this case, most likely Lucius Pomponius Flaccus (32-35 CE).

Auxilia were military forces of non-Roman recruits. It is only after they were discharged from their services that they received Roman citizenships as their rewards.

In any case, a prefect or procurator of a insignificant province wouldn’t command Roman units.

As you can see, there are too many holes in gospels’ accounts to Jesus’ death.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you, an atheist, is a better student of the Bible, than any Christian, then surely you must know that the creative works were witnessed by the sons of God, chief among them, the one that left heaven and came to earth.
What is written is verified by scientific discovery.
This is due to the fact that the creator had the historical recorded, in some detail.
Of course you knew that.

There were many other eyewitness accounts, which any Bible student would know... of course.

I never said any Christian. Just better than you. Now once again, and please be specific, what parts of the Bible do you think are eyewitness accounts?

And the Bible is shown to be wrong far more often than its claims are verified by the sciences.

 

[gnostic]

This is due to the fact that the creator had the historical recorded, in some deta

Are talking about “creator” as in God, or “creator” as in human author.

Because I can you right now, that God didn’t write anything.

Plus nothing in Genesis were written contemporarily. All evidences points to Genesis and other texts attributed to Moses, were written around King Josiah’s reign to after their freedom as hostages in Babylon.

There are no 2nd millennium BCE Bronze Age biblical written texts.

Ancient Hebrew writings don’t exist until the 10th century BCE, and none of writings and inscriptions in this date, mention Moses, David or Solomon.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong.

Eyewitnesses and testimonial evidences, alone, are not the best evidences in history.

The best evidences come from where archaeological evidences meet with contemporary historical documents.

The gospels were originally anonymously, and at least one generation with one gospel (gospel of Mark, circa 75 CE), but 2 generations (c 80-90 CE, of Matthew and Luke) and 3 generations for John (95-105 CE).

Names were ascribed to these authors around mid-2nd century CE.

The words “ascribed” and “attributed” mean the names were given to written works that were written anonymously. Meaning we have no ways of knowing who the REAL AUTHORS were.

None of the works were written at the times of Jesus’ ministry, and certainly not of them (more specifically those attributed to Matthew and Luke) were contemporary to Mary’s pregnancy and Jesus’ birth and wrote them down as eyewitnesses. In the Luke’s gospel, it would seem that the anonymous author was writing from Mary’s point of view, while that of Matthew’s from Joseph’s.

How can that be, when Joseph most likely have died years before Jesus’ ministry started? There is no way for the author (to Matthew’s gospel) to interview Joseph 85-90 years later.

The descriptions on the Crucifixion is also suspiciously made up instead of being witnessed.

Everyone know - modern historians and scholars - that nail spikes are never nailed at the palms, but to the forearms behind the wrists. The bodies are meant to stay up on the wooden props or the crosses for days, so the weights of bodies would not hold up if they were nailed on the palms of the hand.

And that’s another thing, the Romans keep crucified people on the crosses for days. They don’t take them down if they died on the same day they were crucified for burials.

And the Romans also break everyone’s legs regardless if they were alive or dead.

Crucified people were never given exception, because it is never Roman policy for such executions to be merciful. That all gospels narratives on the Crucifixion demonstrated that none of them have seen real crucifixion taking place by Roman soldiers.

And that another thing, in time of peace, the Roman governor, whether he be prefect or procurator of Judaea, like Pontius Pilate, wouldn’t have Roman soldiers, like legionaries, at his command; no he would only command auxiliary infantrymen and cavalrymen.

Roman legions were stationed in Syria, under the command of proconsular legates, in this case, most likely Lucius Pomponius Flaccus (32-35 CE).

Auxilia were military forces of non-Roman recruits. It is only after they were discharged from their services that they received Roman citizenships as their rewards.

In any case, a prefect or procurator of a insignificant province wouldn’t command Roman units.

As you can see, there are too many holes in gospels’ accounts to Jesus’ death.

Repeating what I said.
When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

This is correct.
You can research primary source of evidence, if you think I said anything that is not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating what I said.
When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

This is correct.
You can research primary source of evidence, if you think I said anything that is not true.

So what? Very little of the Bible consists of eyewitness accounts. Let's see Genesis, nope. Exodus, nope. Job, nope, Matthew, nope, Luke, nope, Mark, nope, John, nope. Paul was partially eye witness accounts but many of his claims were of things that he heard.

 

[nPeace]

Genesis 1:1; Job 38:4-7
Matthew 18:10 I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven. . .
John 8:23 [Jesus] went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.
John 16:28 [Jesus said] I came as the Father’s representative and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”
Mark 10:5, 6 5 ...Jesus said to them... 6 ...from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.
Revelation 14:6, 7 6 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. 7 He was saying in a loud voice: “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of judgment by him has arrived, so worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the springs of water.”

@Subduction Zone for a Bible scholar, you sure know very little about the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with dreaming, but when one dreams, and then brag that their dream is reality, it then looks and sounds like a ridiculous tale.

 

[gnostic]

Repeating what I said.
When it comes to history, if there are eyewitnesses to the events, then they can serve as the best evidence, and if checked and verified, it is better than any guesswork - aka scientific inquiry into past events.

This is correct.
You can research primary source of evidence, if you think I said anything that is not true.

The only parts of the Old Testament, are some of the events reigns mentioned in 1 & 2 Kings, where he have the Assyrian Royal Annals actually verified some events with kings of Judah and Israel. But nothing written in Kings were written contemporary to the events, hence not eyewitness accounts.

The Assyrian Annals provided the independent sources to parts of the OT. That's one way for verification of history.

The other way is verification of history with archaeological events.

There are no independent sources, from Adam to Solomon, from Genesis 1 to 1 Kings 12.

What you continued to don't understand, that there are no independent written records of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, nothing to verify these existence or their accomplishments.

All we do have something written centuries after their supposed death. There are no written texts of the Bible in the Bronze Age. Everything written pointed to the late 7th century BCE and later.

 

[nPeace]

The only parts of the Old Testament, are some of the events reigns mentioned in 1 & 2 Kings, where he have the Assyrian Royal Annals actually verified some events with kings of Judah and Israel. But nothing written in Kings were written contemporary to the events, hence not eyewitness accounts.

The Assyrian Annals provided the independent sources to parts of the OT. That's one way for verification of history.

The other way is verification of history with archaeological events.

There are no independent sources, from Adam to Solomon, from Genesis 1 to 1 Kings 12.

What you continued to don't understand, that there are no independent written records of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, nothing to verify these existence or their accomplishments.

All we do have something written centuries after their supposed death. There are no written texts of the Bible in the Bronze Age. Everything written pointed to the late 7th century BCE and later.

That evidently is not the case. For just one fact, see here.

 

[gnostic]

That evidently is not the case. For just one fact, see here.

Everything the Bible say in Genesis 1 & 2, concerning this world and the creation of this word, are wrong, not only historically but also scientifically.

It say the Earth was created before the sun and stars.

But according to modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology (eg the Big Bang), the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while the Earth is merely 4.7 billion years old. Some of the stars near our sun are much older than the sun and earth.

Those red giant stars and white dwarf stars that you see in our sky, are nearing the end of their lifecycle. Some of them were like our sun, but as the stars reach certain points in age, eg run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium atoms, they would begin to fuse helium into heavier element, and this change would turn sun-like stars (stars with similar mass as the sun) into red giant stars, and age some more, with the outer layers of stars breaking apart and being stripped away (star debris and dust), leaving only the stars’ core, hence the name white dwarf.

That process of young stars (yellow dwarfs like the sun) to old stars (red giants) to dead stars (white dwarfs and brown dwarfs) take billions of years. Astrophysicists predicted that our sun will become red giant in another 4 or 5 billion years from now, but only when the sun’s core stopped fusing hydrogen into helium.

It is this fusion, known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis, that provide energy, heat and light. Eventually it will run out of hydrogen to fuse.

Anyway, these red giants and white dwarfs that we can view with our ordinary home telescopes, indicated these stars are much older than our Sun and Earth.

So Genesis 1 is wrong about Earth being older than the stars.

Genesis 1:2 is also wrong about the Earth being covered in water.

You do understand that the Earth is made out of crust (surface), mantle and core, don’t you?

Well at the beginning, the Earth’s surface was like the mantle, molten layer, but as the surface cool down, the outermost layer of mantle, began to solidify into rocks and rock minerals, and thereby forming the Earth’s crust, the newer surface.

There is no water at this stage, until the earth continued to cool, releasing steams and trapped gases, to form the atmosphere. Eventually water began appearing, mostly from the rains, but even then it it didn’t completely covered the Earth.

I am not earth scientist, so I cannot tell you when water began to cover parts of the Earth’s surface.

But in any case, rocky dried land and the earth’s atmosphere existed before the ocean of water. This dispel the myth of Genesis 1:2 as well as the 2nd and 3rd of creation.

The order of creation in Genesis is wrong in so many areas.

The other thing wrong, is that land vegetation (3rd day) existed before the sun, moon and stars (4th day).

And flower and fruit bearing plants came much later; I am not a botanist, but ask any one of them, and they will tell you flower and fruit bearing plants did exist until much later.

It also stated in Genesis that life came from the sea and air, before land animals. It may be true that marine life existed before land animals, but wrong about birds existing before animals. Primitive amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and even dinosaurs, all predated the birds.

So days 5 & 6, about the birds and land animals, are wrong.

Lastly Genesis 2, that dust can turn into man, is scientifically impossible. This is pure fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis 1:1; Job 38:4-7
Matthew 18:10 I tell you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my Father who is in heaven. . .
John 8:23 [Jesus] went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.
John 16:28 [Jesus said] I came as the Father’s representative and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”
Mark 10:5, 6 5 ...Jesus said to them... 6 ...from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female.
Revelation 14:6, 7 6 And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. 7 He was saying in a loud voice: “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of judgment by him has arrived, so worship the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and the springs of water.”

@Subduction Zone for a Bible scholar, you sure know very little about the Bible.
There is nothing wrong with dreaming, but when one dreams, and then brag that their dream is reality, it then looks and sounds like a ridiculous tale.

I appear to know far more than you do. The Gospels are anonymous and were not eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay. Genesis is a book of myths. We have gone over why we know that.

You are making the error of trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That is circular reasoning at best.

 

[nPeace]

Everything the Bible say in Genesis 1 & 2, concerning this world and the creation of this word, are wrong, not only historically but also scientifically.

It say the Earth was created before the sun and stars.

But according to modern astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology (eg the Big Bang), the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while the Earth is merely 4.7 billion years old. Some of the stars near our sun are much older than the sun and earth.

Those red giant stars and white dwarf stars that you see in our sky, are nearing the end of their lifecycle. Some of them were like our sun, but as the stars reach certain points in age, eg run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium atoms, they would begin to fuse helium into heavier element, and this change would turn sun-like stars (stars with similar mass as the sun) into red giant stars, and age some more, with the outer layers of stars breaking apart and being stripped away (star debris and dust), leaving only the stars’ core, hence the name white dwarf.

That process of young stars (yellow dwarfs like the sun) to old stars (red giants) to dead stars (white dwarfs and brown dwarfs) take billions of years. Astrophysicists predicted that our sun will become red giant in another 4 or 5 billion years from now, but only when the sun’s core stopped fusing hydrogen into helium.

It is this fusion, known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis, that provide energy, heat and light. Eventually it will run out of hydrogen to fuse.

Anyway, these red giants and white dwarfs that we can view with our ordinary home telescopes, indicated these stars are much older than our Sun and Earth.

So Genesis 1 is wrong about Earth being older than the stars.

Genesis 1:2 is also wrong about the Earth being covered in water.

You do understand that the Earth is made out of crust (surface), mantle and core, don’t you?

Well at the beginning, the Earth’s surface was like the mantle, molten layer, but as the surface cool down, the outermost layer of mantle, began to solidify into rocks and rock minerals, and thereby forming the Earth’s crust, the newer surface.

There is no water at this stage, until the earth continued to cool, releasing steams and trapped gases, to form the atmosphere. Eventually water began appearing, mostly from the rains, but even then it it didn’t completely covered the Earth.

I am not earth scientist, so I cannot tell you when water began to cover parts of the Earth’s surface.

But in any case, rocky dried land and the earth’s atmosphere existed before the ocean of water. This dispel the myth of Genesis 1:2 as well as the 2nd and 3rd of creation.

The order of creation in Genesis is wrong in so many areas.

The other thing wrong, is that land vegetation (3rd day) existed before the sun, moon and stars (4th day).

And flower and fruit bearing plants came much later; I am not a botanist, but ask any one of them, and they will tell you flower and fruit bearing plants did exist until much later.

It also stated in Genesis that life came from the sea and air, before land animals. It may be true that marine life existed before land animals, but wrong about birds existing before animals. Primitive amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and even dinosaurs, all predated the birds.

So days 5 & 6, about the birds and land animals, are wrong.

Lastly Genesis 2, that dust can turn into man, is scientifically impossible. This is pure fiction.

You say.
It does not say what you say.
However, what it does say is true. You only believe that your just-so-stories are true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say.
It does not say what you say.
However, what it does say is true. You only believe that your just-so-stories are true.

Once again I must correct you. "Just-so-stories" are your flaws.

Just-so story - Wikipedia

"In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an unverifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology)."

The theory of evolution is testable. It is falsifiable. That means it is not a just-so-story. Tell me, what reasonable test would falsify your beliefs in the Bible just-so-stories? If you cannot think of a reasonable test of those ideas then they are just-so-stories. Trying to rely on the theory of evolution is not how you test your ideas. Your test needs to be independent of the theory of evolution just as testing the theory of evolution is independent of the myths of the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Once again I must correct you. "Just-so-stories" are your flaws.

Just-so story - Wikipedia

"In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an unverifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology (where they are known as etiological myths—see etiology)."

The theory of evolution is testable. It is falsifiable. That means it is not a just-so-story. Tell me, what reasonable test would falsify your beliefs in the Bible just-so-stories? If you cannot think of a reasonable test of those ideas then they are just-so-stories. Trying to rely on the theory of evolution is not how you test your ideas. Your test needs to be independent of the theory of evolution just as testing the theory of evolution is independent of the myths of the Bible.

just-so story
noun
variants: or less commonly just so story
Definition of just-so story

: a speculative story or explanation of doubtful or unprovable validity that is put forward to account for the origin of something (such as a biological trait) when no verifiable explanation is known When large claims about humans hang on just-so stories about the evolution of animal behavior, a selective reading of the ethnographic record or the casual lumping together of human and animal behavior, the wise should tread warily.— Philip Kitcher, New York Times Book Review, 20 May 1984 Rather than offering firm answers, Wild Minds delves into the messy, difficult business of bringing animal thinking out of the realm of just-so stories and into that of solid empirical research.— Jennifer Schuessler, Lingua Franca, April 2000F or Panek, this faint radiation arriving from all directions is th first experimental confirmation of big bang theory, and the moment at which cosmology made the transition from celestial just-so story to science.— Richard Lea, The Guardian (London), 19 Mar. 2011



If I laid down timber, and nails in a heap... whipped up a tornado 100 to the power of 1000000000 times, I would not get a house to live in.
Put all the chemicals in any environment you want. Walk away and give it billions of years, and see life form, with coded instructions for every feature we see in life today.
I'm sure you won't even get anything close to these...

How could you possibly get this...

 

[Subduction Zone]

just-so story
noun
variants: or less commonly just so story
Definition of just-so story

: a speculative story or explanation of doubtful or unprovable validity that is put forward to account for the origin of something (such as a biological trait) when no verifiable explanation is known When large claims about humans hang on just-so stories about the evolution of animal behavior, a selective reading of the ethnographic record or the casual lumping together of human and animal behavior, the wise should tread warily.— Philip Kitcher, New York Times Book Review, 20 May 1984 Rather than offering firm answers, Wild Minds delves into the messy, difficult business of bringing animal thinking out of the realm of just-so stories and into that of solid empirical research.— Jennifer Schuessler, Lingua Franca, April 2000F or Panek, this faint radiation arriving from all directions is th first experimental confirmation of big bang theory, and the moment at which cosmology made the transition from celestial just-so story to science.— Richard Lea, The Guardian (London), 19 Mar. 2011



If I laid down timber, and nails in a heap... whipped up a tornado 100 to the power of 1000000000 times, I would not get a house to live in.
Put all the chemicals in any environment you want. Walk away and give it billions of years, and see life form, with coded instructions for every feature we see in life today.
I'm sure you won't even get anything close to these...

How could you possibly get this...

Your terribly incompetent strawman does not make evolution a just-so-story. Once again that is what you believe in. You could not name a reasonable test that could falsify it. You sadly underlined the word "unprovable" in the poor definition that you chose. That demonstrates you have no concept of how science is done since nothing in this world can be "proven" true. At least not in a mathematical sense. If you mean "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then you fail again since the theory of evolution has met that level of "proof". Just because you do not like science does not mean that that is not the case.

The better definition is that one that I chose since it relies upon the more reasonable standard that a just-so-story is not falsifialble. One more time, tell me what reasonable test would show your beliefs to be wrong? If you cannot name one then you have admitted that your beliefs are a just-so-story.

 

[nPeace]

I appear to know far more than you do. The Gospels are anonymous and were not eyewitness accounts. They are hearsay. Genesis is a book of myths. We have gone over why we know that.

You are making the error of trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. That is circular reasoning at best.

I suggest you stop imagining that dreams are real events. Perhaps scientists may propose that in the future, but that's not how it is.
I never use circular reasoning.
I know you also like to make up stuff, to add some color to a post that's bland, but that is a misleading tactic.

 

[nPeace]

Your terribly incompetent strawman does not make evolution a just-so-story. Once again that is what you believe in. You could not name a reasonable test that could falsify it. You sadly underlined the word "unprovable" in the poor definition that you chose. That demonstrates you have no concept of how science is done since nothing in this world can be "proven" true. At least not in a mathematical sense. If you mean "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" then you fail again since the theory of evolution has met that level of "proof". Just because you do not like science does not mean that that is not the case.

The better definition is that one that I chose since it relies upon the more reasonable standard that a just-so-story is not falsifialble. One more time, tell me what reasonable test would show your beliefs to be wrong? If you cannot name one then you have admitted that your beliefs are a just-so-story.

Don't tell me you are also blind... or you don't understand... apparently.
I can't help you. I tried.
Please don't repeat yourself unnecessarily. Try to understand. It's not rocket science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suggest you stop imagining that dreams are real events. Perhaps scientists may propose that in the future, but that's not how it is.
I never use circular reasoning.
I know you also like to make up stuff, to add some color to a post that's bland, but that is a misleading tactic.

You used circular reasoning in your weak attempt to refute me. You referred to the Bible to "prove the Bible". Quotes from the Bible does not mean that the work is eyewitness testimony. You should try to learn why scholars that do study the works properly know that it is not.

I did not make up anything. You cannot find a case of me doing so. Telling falsehoods when you have been caught is not wise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't tell me you are also blind... or you don't understand... apparently.
I can't help you. I tried.
Please don't repeat yourself unnecessarily. Try to understand. It's not rocket science.

You are projecting again. What was the purpose of those "creatard" (and that is the only way that some of those illustrations can be referred to properly, my apologies to the mentally disabled) pictures that you posted? You used a flawed source. By its poor definition everything is a "just-so-story" since one cannot "prove" anything in the sciences. Mine was a far superior source since science relies on falsifiable models.

You in effect failed. You admitted that your beliefs are a just-so-story since you cannot think of a reasonable test for them. There is reason that the creationist stories or Kipling's were called just-so-stories and yours are no different.

 

[nPeace]

You used circular reasoning in your weak attempt to refute me. You referred to the Bible to "prove the Bible". Quotes from the Bible does not mean that the work is eyewitness testimony. You should try to learn why scholars that do study the works properly know that it is not.

I did not make up anything. You cannot find a case of me doing so. Telling falsehoods when you have been caught is not wise.

Please try to understand.
I used the Bible to show that there were many witnesses, and particularly to the Genesis, when you claimed only a few, and did not include Genesis, nor the witnesses I presented.


Proving you are no Bible scholar. You only dream of it.