Why believe the bible?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Evidence is a piece of information or fact. A claim is an idea.  The evidence is the actual book or letter. The content of that book or letter is the claim.

So the Bible is both the evidence and the claim.

The reason they are not the same is that you can have multiple pieces of evidence (books or letters) written by different people over decades that have basically the same claim.

Again. Both the claim and the evidence.

You could argue the same applies to a scientific paper for example, but a paper will make it clear what the claim is and what the evidence is. That way a reader will be able to evaluate both the claim and the evidence individually. Nowhere in the Bible does this occur though.

I see you are now ignoring the OT for no reason. Is that no longer part of the Bible? This just makes you look disingenuous.

Different set of claims separated by four centuries. Lumping them together serves no discussion purpose other than to make irrelevant point by people who don't know the difference.

Oh right. Your only answer to that is arrogance.

Anyway, to name a few examples from the NT:

• the virgin birth
  
• the resurrection
  
• All, or almost all if we're being generous, of the miracles of Jesus such as walking on water, calming a storm, feeding a crowd of thousands from a few simple items of food, raising the dead, his cures etc
  

These all violate what we know from biology and  physics.

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

And you presume that the supernatural exists despite there being no evidence of it or even any logical definition of what the supernatural could even be.