(August 16, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents....lol, really, nothing to do with it?
Quote:What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is.What eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness to what, exactly, while we're at it?
In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?
Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?
Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.
