Atheists interpret bible verses

[sinnerdaniel94]

Suetonius

which one's pass the test of legitimacy?

'ones'.  Plural, not possessive.

For a testimony to be acceptable, there are a few generally agreed-upon criteria.

The testator should have no bias regarding the testimony.  Taking a photograph of Abraham Lincoln is evidence that Lincoln existed, as the photographer is unlikely to have a particular axe to grind by taking a photograph.  The Pauline epistles don't qualify as evidence, as Paul is inherently biased that his words be accepted as true.

The testimony is suspect if there is an alternative, more likely explanation.  For example, if I tell you my toe hurts because I was attacked by a goblin who hit it with a club, we can reject this testimony in favour of 'Boru is a thumb-fingered idjit who dropped a hammer on his foot.'

The testimony should be able to be corroborated.  We are told that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, and so forth.  But these events are to be found ONLY in the Bible.  It is reasonable to assume that someone else, somewhere would have written of the water-walking trick.  It isn't something that happens every day.  The war you brought up, as well and Gandhi, are confirmed by multiple, contemporary sources.

I hope this helps.

Boru

The disciples and the other writers of the new testament were tortured and faced death threats throughout their ministry. Is it not reasonable to assume they were telling the truth or do you think they were defending a lie? It seems to me they had much incentive to not preach or write down anything about Jesus, yet they still did. It doesn't seem they profited at all from what they believed. One can only question whether or not they saw a resurrected Jesus.

The alternative explanation is reasonable, but I don't hold anything to be true based on convenience. 

And there is mention of Jesus by other historians like Josephus and Suetonius. The disciples were the only ones who witness the walking on water miracle by Jesus according to the gospels, so I wouldn't expect another party to write about it.

It takes faith to believe the bible. I think it's reasonable though, especially considering the prophetic nature of the book. But its hard for me to argue the validity of miracles because it goes against the laws of nature. That's probably what Jesus was trying to tell us; that He was in control of the forces of nature and was able to do these things because He is God.

---

Even the talking animals and lights fixed to the skydome?

Every single verse. I look at it this way, you guys are begging for God to reveal Himself to humans and I think He did it through Jesus Christ and He left us the bible so that future generations can know about Him.