The Great Flood

[Edwardo Piet]

Your argument on the Bible is uninformed and irrelevant. You only have one point and that is that you don’t want to believe it so you refuse the evidence.

---

No its not because I don't want to believe it. I'd be fine if a God existed since he doesn't appear to be doing anything if he exists anyway.
Its because I care about truth. And being ignorant of big truths and believing big untruths is delusional. And scripture is not valid evidence. It is unscientific and illogical. Like I have said before, could I use just any fictional book to prove anything supernatural? Could I use the gospel of the FSM to prove the FSM? I think not.
Could I use 'back to the future' to 100% prove time travel?
Could I use Lord of the Rings to prove Hobbits, Elves, Orcs, cave trolls, giant spiders 'the ring', wizards and Golem, etc?
The way you appear to dodge it is you interpret some bits of scripture metaphorically and other bits literally. But how do you know what bits are meant to be interpreted metaphorically and what bits are meant to be interpreted literally?
You could also make all the unreasonable bits in 'Back to the Future' and 'The Lord of the Rings' more metaphorical and then the more reasonable and natural bits more literal, could you not? Therefore making the whole ideas seem less unreasonable. Just as you are doing with scripture.
So I don't think its about scripture, because surely the only way you could really think you know when to interpret the bible metaphorically and when to interpret it literally is that you think God is guiding you or something. That is the argument from personal experience not scripture.
So it looks like your argument from scripture is actually been guided by your argument from personal experience, and the personal experience of other believers, perhaps?
So I think perhaps the deeper issue for you is the argument from personal experience, not from scripture.
Have I missed? Have I made a direct hit? Or have I glanced? Am I right at all here Daystar?