(March 31, 2016 at 1:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Seems to me that the OP is presenting an all-or-nothing view of the biblical canon. I agree that the Bible is not a science book. Likewise many passages reflect cosmologies current in their time, etc. That does not justify a blanket statement that the scriptural texts are not evidence of anything at all. The fact that some accounts within a larger story reflect different perspectives does not automatically mean that the entire story is a fabrication.
And it depends on what question you are trying to answer with the data. We can certainly glean a great deal of evidence about the culture, customs, and beliefs of the writers and the societies in which they lived. Historical details, once considered fabrications, are sometimes later confirmed with modern archaeological findings. Evidence is not always made from a single piece; but rather, an assembly of several bits of data such as a pot shard here, the inscription on a coin there, and ancient texts that point to a particular historical interpretation. Common themes that run through the centuries can be identified.
I most certainly do not agree with those Evangelicals and others that also insist on an all-or-nothing approach to biblical interpretation. The 66 books of the canonical Bible were assembled over centuries out of everything from poetry and prophetic visions to legal guides and eyewitness testimonies. It is unreasonable to demand that this wide variety of texts must run through only the filter of 20-21st Century science. Why that and not also modern literary textural analysis, linguistics, and semiotics? While it is true that some believers cherry-pick verses to support specific doctrines, it seems to me that many other (atheists among them) are cherry-picking from among a wide range hermeneutics to that support their own bias.
The fact that the Bible gets some historical things correct, offers ZERO evidence for any of the supernatural events.
As far as any of the supernatural events, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
