Evidence Verses Faith

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah and what that is is trying to fit your own personal God within your own will. Rather than trying to see what God has to say about it himself. Very childish and pointless other than to justify ones own needs. Atheists tend to do the same thing.

And how exactly do you "try to see what god has to say about himself", Without interpreting him with your own free will and 'fitting him within your own free will"?

Have we discussed the interpretive nature of science? For hundreds of years Newton's theory of gravity was the interpretation and then along comes this Einstein guy and BAM! A new 'EXPERT' interpretation. Now you can say what you want but the FACT is that for hundreds of years science was wrong. They may still be wrong. So what is the problem? We can't be wrong about the Bible?

I have had this conversation with someone I know. More than once actually. He says "But science has been wrong so many times".
Basically, my answer is. Science gets results. And once again you must understand the burden of proof. You keep getting backwards.
By default. Something doesn't exist. Or isn't true. When someone comes up with a theory then the burden of proof is on THEM to give evidence for its truth. The more evidence it has to support it. The more probable its truth becomes. When it has totally enough significant substantial evidence it is considered scientifically proved. If any unexpected new evidence comes in to contradict it, it is looked at. If the new evidence overthrows it then that is considered proved.
Science progresses hugely. And if it makes a mistake it corrects it. The reverse, and a bad way would be like this.
Think up some theory or just random idea with no evidence supporting it. Meaning its intangible. Completely without content. Assume its true. Try and disprove it. It can't be disproved EVER because there's no evidence supporting it to BE disproved. Its an empty seat. So its really disproved anyway. Non-proved rather. In the sense that it has never been proved or had any evidence to support it so there's nothing TO disprove. BUT it is still stupidly treated as proved because it is assumed it is proved before it has any substance. That's idiotic thinking. And then there is no way it can be disproved. So this empty nonsensical seat gets respected and trusted when its got no support to back it up. There's nothing sitting on the seat. And certainly no God to sit on his throne.
FIRST something is unproved. It needs evidence FIRST before it CAN be disproved. It doesn't start proved. Before that it is nothing but a hypothesis. Its purely hypothetical. Pure speculation until the idea or hypothesized idea, or theory has some form of support. SOME evidence. And of course anything actually testable at all counts as SOME evidence. Anything that is not completely intangible. Unlike the supernatural. Unlike "God". The empty seat.
Correct me if I'm wrong anyone. I'm not a scientist or anything

The most consistent interpretation allows for literal and figurative as well as other considerations and is not limited in ignorance to a stubborn literal interpretation.

So how do YOU make sure YOU interpret it correctly? And don't make a huge cock-up and misunderstand the bible greatly? How do you know when to be literal? And when to be figurative, etc? Its obviously not exactly easy otherwise so many people wouldn't apparently misunderstand it and actually think that the OT is full of complete horror.
And as well as that the bible never gives many reasons to believe in God other than promises, threats and simply "I exist". Does he? There aren't any good ones anyway. Just these 3 terrible AND nonsensical ones and if any others they are at least nonsensical. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.

The competent Bible student doesn't do that but I will tell you this, the incompetent Bible critic does the same thing in reverse. The same stupid bullshit in criticizing. Only one atheist I have ever come across doesn't do that - Rambo of Bible Babble. He also happens to be the most difficult person to refute because he knows what he is talking about or he looks it up unlike most Atheist who assume out of ignorance and don't have much defense.

Ok first of all: 1. I DON'T need ANY defense against the bible other than the fact you nor anyone else can give me ANY evidence for the truth of it. And until I know of any evidence its by default to be considered untrue.
And secondly 2: The OT explicitly has repeated gruesome horror in it. How do you interpret THAT?
And, if Christopher Hitchens is correct the original OT didn't have a heaven or hell in it. It was introduced in the original NT. So there was no eternal punishment until the NT. So in a way the NT is arguably worse than even the horrors of the OT. What would you think of that? I don't study the bible myself so perhaps I should ask you? That's why I said "If" and not "I know this".

Occam's razor completely disposes of the supernatural.