Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures?

[Compassionist]

I am quoting from Joshua 10: 12 - 14, the Bible (English Standard Version)

"At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

Sun, stand still at Gibeon,
and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel."

Why isn't the standing still of the sun and the moon not recorded by other cultures that had invented writing?

The event described in Joshua 10:12–14, where the sun and moon are said to have stood still to allow the Israelites more time to defeat their enemies, would - if taken literally - constitute a global astronomical phenomenon. If the Earth’s rotation truly stopped or slowed (which is what "the sun stood still" would physically mean), it would have had catastrophic global consequences, including massive earthquakes, tsunamis, and changes in atmospheric motion due to sudden deceleration.

Such an event could not have gone unnoticed by other civilisations and would have been recorded by other literate cultures that kept astronomical or historical records.

At the time (around 13th to 15th century BCE, depending on the dating of the conquest narratives), several advanced civilisations with writing and astronomical records existed, including:

Egyptians
Babylonians
Chinese (Shang Dynasty)
Minoans/Mycenaeans
Sumerians
Indus Valley remnants

Yet none of these cultures, despite their meticulous sky observations, record a day when the sun and moon stood still or behaved abnormally. I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #59]

RBD, thank you for continuing the discussion. I appreciate your consistency, but your argument concedes my main point: once a claim is defined as “beyond all possible verification,” it ceases to be about knowledge and becomes about personal faith.

If the supernatural never interacts with matter, then it makes no observable difference - and is indistinguishable from imagination. If the supernatural does interact with matter - parting seas, stopping the sun, resurrecting dead bodies - then it becomes detectable in principle. You can’t have both: physical impact without physical consequence.

Science doesn’t reject the supernatural “by faith in naturalism”; it simply follows the evidence wherever it leads. If a measurable, repeatable anomaly ever required amending physics, scientists would do so - that’s how relativity and quantum theory emerged. But until such evidence appears, “God did it” remains a claim, not an explanation.

Calling skepticism “faith in natural things” confuses two different stances: belief without evidence versus withholding belief until evidence appears. The first is religion; the second is prudence.

The Christian faith has the additional problem of competition with other faiths. There are many faiths on Earth. If none of them can be proven with evidence, then they are all equally faith-based. If you claim Christianity to be true, you must prove it with evidence for me to accept it as true.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #56]

RBD, thank you for your detailed explanation - I appreciate that you’re engaging seriously with questions of evidence and belief.

1. The Bible’s existence is evidence of belief, not evidence of God

Already explained enough the standard of history and law, that accepts recorded eyewitness testimony as direct evidence of what is being testified of.

The firsthand evidence is accepted as direct. Accuracy can be determined by proven confirmation or rejection.

Any statement that the Bible has no evidence, is false.

I agree that any written text is evidence that people held certain beliefs.

Already explained enough that recorded eyewitness testimony, is not a record of belief, but of firsthand eyewitness.
Nowhere in the Bible, does any writer speak of any event, that he only believes in. It's recorded eyewitness testimony of events.

2. Circular confirmation

Your reasoning is:

1. The Bible says there is only one true God.
2. Therefore, all other gods are false.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.

False. I don't argue in circles like this.

I've also requested enough for you to quote me, so that you don't falsely misrepresent me.

3. Selective application of standards

You grant that Hindu and other scriptures are “evidence of their gods”, but then dismiss them because the Bible forbids belief in them.

False. The Bible acknowledges they exist, but forbids worshipping and obeying them.

The Bible reveals fallen angels as gods, as well as people acting as gods themselves, by their own moral rule over God's righteousness and true holiness:

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The Bible God acknowledges, that fallen angels and people, who depart from His law of commandments, are then as fallen gods from heaven, and on earth.

The Bible God's command is simply not to worship nor act like them:

1Th 1:9
For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

1Jo 5:21
Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

That’s not objective evaluation - that’s using one text’s authority to judge all others, which begs the question of why that text should be privileged in the first place.

Objectivity is always necessary to determine any errors or contradiction in any text. This also includes after personally accepting it as accurate.

Once any one text is accepted as true, then it has the privilege of being the authority by which all other texts are judged.

Continued objectivity in Bible accuracy, including after accepting it's authority, does continue to keep similar objectivity with other books, but does not demand accepting all books as true. Objectively accepting one God and religion, does not demand objectively accepting all Gods and religions.

He that believes all God and religions, does not believe in any God nor religion, but his own...

4. On “predetermined disbelief”

People who don’t accept the Bible as divine revelation aren’t predetermined to disbelieve

Already explained enough the difference between skeptics objectively withholding faith or disbelief, without factual evidence that confirms or denies it's accuracy.

Only committed disbelievers conclude a text is false, without first proving any error in it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #62]

Thank you, RBD. I appreciate the clarification.
But your reasoning still assumes what it’s meant to prove.

1. Eyewitness testimony isn’t self-verifying.
In both law and history, claims of eyewitness testimony are not automatically accepted as true. They’re weighed against corroboration, consistency, physical evidence, and proximity to the events described.
If someone today writes, “I saw Zeus descend from Olympus,” the document is evidence that someone made the claim, not that Zeus descended.
Likewise, the Bible is evidence of ancient belief, not direct evidence of divine action - unless corroborated by external data.

2. Circular reasoning remains circular even when denied.
You wrote that once a text is accepted as true, it becomes the standard by which all others are judged.
That’s the very definition of begging the question: presupposing the Bible’s truth in order to argue for the Bible’s truth.
An objective method would compare competing texts and test their claims against independent reality, not against themselves.

3. Burden of proof can’t be reversed.
Skeptics are not required to disprove every unverified claim.
If someone says, “A global flood covered the Earth,” the responsibility to demonstrate that rests on the claimant.
Otherwise, every unfalsified story - from Vishnu’s avatars to Ra’s solar barque - would deserve the same credence.

4. Predetermined disbelief vs. critical scrutiny.
Rejecting a claim for lack of evidence is not “predetermined disbelief”; it’s epistemic consistency.
I also withhold belief in other ancient miracle claims until they are substantiated.
If you apply the same standards to all texts, you’ll find that the Bible stands on the same evidential footing as the epics and scriptures of other religions: sincere testimony, yes - but uncorroborated.

So the issue isn’t hostility to Christianity; it’s that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and written testimony, decades or centuries after the events, is not enough to establish that a global flood occurred, the Red Sea was parted, the sun and the moon stood still, and corpses were resurrected. I created a thread requesting evidence for Biblical events: viewtopic.php?t=42683 If you can prove Biblical events by evidence, please do. The Bible doesn't count as evidence for the claims in the Bible, just as other religious books don't count as evidence for the claims in those religious books. I especially recommend that you read this particular post: viewtopic.php?p=1179052#p1179052

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

RBD, thank you for your detailed response. I think our main difference lies in how we treat testimony as evidence.

Correct. All recorded eyewitness accounts are direct evidence of the event. Whether good or bad evidence remains for investigation.

Not calling an eyewitness account evidence at all, is the error of revisionist historical analysis. The Bible is the physical evidence of the eyewitnesses accounts therein. Saying the Bible has no evidence for it's testimonies is self-contradictory.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a kind of evidence, but in both law and history it is not accepted as fact until corroborated. Courts regularly dismiss or overturn eyewitness accounts when they conflict with physical data, internal consistency, or known psychology.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed direct evidence, but in both law and history it does not have to be accepted as fact, nor can be dismissed as false, until corroborated or disproven.

Courts regularly dismiss or overturn direct evidence of eyewitness accounts, when they conflict with physical data, internal consistency, or known psychology, and more regularly accept direct evidence of eyewitness accounts without proven contradiction.

Don't know about the 'known psychology'?

The Bible’s miracle stories may be sincere, but they are anonymous, undated, and written long after the events they describe.

Eze 1:3
The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him. And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire.

Dan 9:2
In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem...And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.

Rev 22:8
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

Jhn 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So long as the writers of personal eyewitness testimony are dismissed by revisionist analysis, then any favor shown to them is lip-service alone.

By modern standards, that’s hearsay, not direct observation.

By modern revisionist standards, eyewitness records are called hearsay, and not direct observation as testified.

Of course, such obvious revisionist prejudice in the Bible case, is simply disbelief in the supernatural by faith in the natural things alone...

As for “supernatural events leaving no trace,” that’s precisely the problem:

For anyone vainly trying to prove or disprove the supernatural by natural means alone. By definition, it's a self-concluding non-starter, so far as such arguments go...

if something cannot be detected, measured, or independently verified, then we have no way to distinguish an actual event from imagination.

If something cannot be naturally detected, measured, or independently verified, then naturalists cannot believe it's an actual event, but only imagination.

Calling the gap “supernatural” doesn’t explain it - it only labels our ignorance.

Calling the natural gap “supernatural” defines it as unnatural- which is ignorant to the natural man.

Science doesn’t claim that all reality is “natural by faith”; it claims only that testable causes produce reproducible results.

Already responded enough about the difference between natural science only explaining natural events, vs faith in natural science alone to reject any supernatural event. And, any such claim of 'supernatural' is ignorant.

Claims that remove themselves from testing remove themselves from knowledge.

Supernatural claims that are not subject to natural testing, are themselves removed from natural knowledge. They're just imagined ignorance to the natural man.

That’s why the same standard applies not only to Christianity but also to the miracle claims of every other faith - they may be meaningful stories, but without verification, they remain stories.

That’s why this same natural standard applies not only to the Bible but also to the miracle claims of every other book - they may be supernatural claims, but without natural verification, they remain so-called supernatural claims, that insult the intelligence of the natural man...

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #64]

RBD, thank you for continuing the discussion.

You and I seem to be using “evidence” in very different ways. I’m using the historical and legal sense: testimony counts as a kind of evidence, but its reliability depends on corroboration and context. Calling something “eyewitness” does not automatically make it trustworthy - otherwise every religion’s scriptures would be equally verified.

In modern historiography, three points apply:

1. Authorship and proximity matter.
Most biblical books are anonymous, written decades or centuries after the events they describe, often in a different language and region. Phrases like “I John saw these things” or “I Daniel understood” do not establish independent verification - they are literary conventions common in ancient religious writings. For instance, apocalyptic authors routinely wrote under the names of revered figures (Daniel, Enoch, Ezra) long after their deaths.

2. Independent corroboration is the benchmark.
Courts and historians accept testimony when it’s supported by external evidence: archaeology, inscriptions, contemporary records, or multiple independent witnesses. The biblical miracles lack such corroboration, and parallel “eyewitness” claims exist in other religions (Hindu, Islamic, Mormon) that you reject.

3. Natural vs. supernatural isn’t prejudice, it’s method.
Science and critical history don’t “rule out” the supernatural by faith in nature; they simply require that a cause be testable and reproducible before we label it “known.” If an event leaves no detectable trace, then - whether natural or supernatural - it remains unknowable in empirical terms. Calling the unknown “supernatural” does not increase knowledge; it changes vocabulary.

As for your claim that “the Bible is physical evidence of eyewitness accounts,” the same logic would make the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, and Book of Mormon direct evidence of their Gods’ revelations. Historians cannot privilege one text over others without external support.

So, I’m not denying that the Bible is evidence of belief; I’m saying belief and event are different categories. Until a claim shows independent confirmation, it remains testimony - sincere perhaps, but not verifiable knowledge.

It may help to note that professional historians of antiquity - including many who are personally Christian - assess biblical testimony using the same critical tools they apply to every other ancient source.

Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina) argues that the New Testament preserves valuable early traditions about Jesus but that its authors wrote decades later, drawing on oral sources, theology, and community memory. He treats the Gospels as historical data filtered through belief, not as direct eyewitness reports.

Paula Fredriksen (Boston University / Hebrew University), likewise a believing scholar, accepts that Jesus was crucified under Pilate because it is attested by multiple independent sources and fits the political context - but she distinguishes that from miracle claims, which lack independent corroboration.

N. T. Wright (former Oxford professor and Anglican bishop) defends the resurrection as a historical inference from the rise of early Christian belief, not because any contemporaneous document proves it. Even his apologetic case concedes that we have no surviving eyewitness diaries or official records.

Across the field, historians apply the same evidentiary hierarchy:

1. Primary sources written near the event
2. Multiple independent attestations
3. Coherence with known background data
4. The principle of analogy - preferring explanations consistent with well-established natural processes unless evidence forces a new category.

By these standards, the crucifixion itself rates as historically probable (given overlapping sources and Roman practice), while supernatural events - resurrection, angelic visions, cosmic darkness - remain theologically claimed but historically unverified.

So when I ask for corroboration, I’m not applying a special bias against Christianity; I’m using the same critical method that Christian and secular historians alike employ for all claims about the ancient world.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #59]

RBD, thank you for continuing the discussion. I appreciate your consistency, but your argument concedes my main point: once a claim is defined as “beyond all possible verification,” it ceases to be about knowledge and becomes about personal faith.

I appreciate your responses too. But, I don't argue against the need of personal faith to accept supernatural events as true, since they can't be naturally proven. The Bible itself acknowledges that faith is necessary to come to a spiritual God:

Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If all your arguing, is that faith is necessary to believe in anything that is not naturally explainable nor provable, then there would have been no objection from the Bible, nor me.

If the supernatural never interacts with matter, then it makes no observable difference - and is indistinguishable from imagination.

I.e. without natural confirmation, it's not possible for any supernatural thing to be objectively true. It's only someone personally imagining things. "Just a bunch of imaginary superstitions."

This accusation of superstitious imagination, is exactly is what I, and any natural scientist, who do believe in the supernatural, can and do reasonably argue against.

You are not objectively arguing for necessary faith in the supernatural, in order to accept it, but you are subjectively arguing against any such possible faith in anything, that cannot be naturally explained. That is not a scientific argument alone, since there are natural scientist's who do believe in the spiritual things. Rather this is only an argument made by someone's personal faith in natural science alone, to the exclusion of anything supernatural occurring in the natural universe.

By saying the supernatural is only subjectively imagined, you are calling such faith only imaginary. You are telling any natural scientist, who does believe in the supernatural, that he or she is only 'imagining things'. Which of course is an insult to their own natural intelligence.

You do not believe it is possible to have faith in natural science to explain natural things, and have faith in supernatural thing, that cannot be explaiined nor proven by natural science.

If I am wrong about your argument being against having objective faith in the supernatural, in any detail, please correct it specifically. Thanks.

If the supernatural does interact with matter - parting seas, stopping the sun, resurrecting dead bodies - then it becomes detectable in principle. You can’t have both: physical impact without physical consequence.

Science doesn’t reject the supernatural “by faith in naturalism”; it simply follows the evidence wherever it leads. If a measurable, repeatable anomaly ever required amending physics, scientists would do so - that’s how relativity and quantum theory emerged. But until such evidence appears, “God did it” remains a claim, not an explanation.

Calling skepticism “faith in natural things” confuses two different stances: belief without evidence versus withholding belief until evidence appears. The first is religion; the second is prudence.

The Christian faith has the additional problem of competition with other faiths. There are many faiths on Earth. If none of them can be proven with evidence, then they are all equally faith-based. If you claim Christianity to be true, you must prove it with evidence for me to accept it as true.

And so, all you do is repeat, or copy and paste, your own natural arguments. At this point to continue any further, you will need to at least repeat my objection accurately, so that we can at least agree on exactly what I am objecting to about your naturally-based argument.

You can begin by confirming or denying my understanding of your argument: Are you saying, that it is impossible to have any objective faith in any supernatural event, so long as it cannot be naturally explained nor proven? Are you saying, that the supernatural cannot be objectively true, but can only be personally imagined alone? That any who does claim that there are supernatural events, which have and can occur in the natural universe, are just personally imagining things, that cannot possibly be true?

Thanks for your time. I do want us both to understand exactly what you are arguing, and exactly what I am objecting to.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #66]

Thank you, RBD, for continuing the discussion. You’re right that I am distinguishing knowledge from faith. Faith may have personal and emotional value, but it is not a reliable path to objective truth - especially when competing faiths make contradictory claims.

Let me clarify my position, and you can tell me where you differ:

1. Faith ≠ Knowledge

You quoted Hebrews 11:6 to show that faith is “necessary to please God.” But that verse itself shows the problem: faith requires belief without evidence.

Science and reason, by contrast, come to a belief because of evidence.
Those are opposite epistemic postures. Once a claim is insulated from evidence, it can’t be distinguished from imagination, delusion, or myth. That’s why all religious traditions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Daoism and many more - persist despite contradicting each other in their core beliefs.

If faith can justify one religion, it can justify all religions equally - and therefore no religion is justifiable by faith alone. We must have evidence for something to be accepted as the truth.

2. “Objective Faith” Is a Contradiction

You suggest there can be “objective faith in the supernatural.” But objectivity means intersubjective verifiability - that others can test and confirm the claim independently.
Faith, by definition, is subjective conviction without such verification.

If you want to say “faith is necessary for personal belief,” fine. But “objective faith” is like saying “square circle.”

3. The Supernatural Either Acts or It Doesn’t

If the supernatural interacts with the physical, it must leave physical effects - measurable, observable, or detectable in principle.
If it never interacts, then it has no effect and is indistinguishable from nonexistence.

You can’t have both:

“God parted the Red Sea” (a physical claim)
and
“The supernatural can’t be proven by physical means.”

If a God alters matter, light, or human bodies, then those are empirical events.
If you can’t detect them, they didn't happen.

4. “Natural Science Faith” Is a Strawman

I don’t have “faith in naturalism.” I simply withhold belief until there’s evidence. That’s not faith - that’s prudence.

Science is not a belief system; it’s a method that works regardless of worldview. It has explained thousands of phenomena once attributed to Gods or demons - lightning, disease, earthquakes, mental illness - by uncovering consistent natural causes.

No religion has ever discovered a single natural law, but science has repeatedly overturned religious explanations.

5. Competing Faiths Undermine Exclusivity

You appeal to “faith” as the reason to accept Christianity. But billions of Hindus, Muslims, and others do the same for their own scriptures and religions - with equal sincerity.

Unless there’s independent evidence that distinguishes one revelation from another, we can’t rationally prefer yours. All stand on the same epistemic ground: unverified testimony.

6. The Issue Isn’t Imagination, It’s Justification

You asked whether I’m “calling such faith imaginary.”
No - people’s experiences can be subjectively real, e.g. feeling comforted by the prospect of spending eternity in heaven with family and friends.
But unless they produce objective corroboration, they remain personally meaningful stories, not universally demonstrable truths.

That’s why I call religions fiction: not because they lack emotion or cultural importance, but because their claims aren’t verifiable facts.

Faith may comfort, but it doesn’t confirm.
Belief without evidence explains why people disagree, not who is right.
Knowledge requires evidence that would convince even a skeptic.

If you claim Christianity is true, the only way to show it objectively is to produce evidence that cannot equally justify other religions or purely natural explanations.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #62]

Thank you, RBD. I appreciate the clarification.
But your reasoning still assumes what it’s meant to prove.

False. One last time: Recorded eyewitness testimony is itself defined as firsthand direct evidence, vs secondhand evidence. Whether it is true evidence or not, remains to be proven or disproven.

So long as no evidence disproves it, then it can be accepted as true in historical research, and judged as true in court of law.

The fact is, that it is recorded firsthand evidence. That is a historical and legal fact, not an assumption of proof or disproof.

Therefore, anyone saying the Bible events have no evidence, doesn't know what evidentiary finding is.

1. Eyewitness testimony isn’t self-verifying.

Of course. It's firsthand direct evidence, not self-verifying evidence.

2. Circular reasoning remains circular even when denied.
You wrote that once a text is accepted as true, it becomes the standard by which all others are judged.

True. Either by personal faith, and/or by generally accepted proof.

That’s the very definition of begging the question: presupposing the Bible’s truth in order to argue for the Bible’s truth.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

An objective method would compare competing texts and test their claims against independent reality, not against themselves.

Only for the skeptic, that is still looking for independent evidence, who neither believes nor disbelieves anything otherwise.

So long as none exists to contradict the Bible, then I objectively read all other books, to see if they agree or disagree. I also continue to objectively address any challenges to Bible inerrancy.

I can objectively say, that the Koran is not true, when denying God has any Son, because I objectively conclude the Bible remains unerringly true, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God...

3. Burden of proof can’t be reversed.
Skeptics are not required to disprove every unverified claim.

Of course. Only accusers must prove their accusations, by showing independent proof.

You're still mixing accusers, that declare the Bible false, with objective skeptics, that withhold faith or disbelieve, until independent evidence proves on or the other...

4. Predetermined disbelief vs. critical scrutiny.
Rejecting a claim for lack of evidence is not “predetermined disbelief”;

Fair enough. Correction: Rejecting a claim for lack of evidence is not "disbelief”, not skepticism.

I also withhold belief in other ancient miracle claims until they are substantiated.

The problem of course with the Bible account is, that you've already concluded your personal disbelief, for your own reasons:

Compassionist said
I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.

In this Bible record, you are not a skeptic, but an accuser of lying...

As you've said to me before, you can't have it both ways.

Neither you nor I are now independent skeptics with the Bible. So long as you declare some things to be a lie, and I declare all things in the Bible to be true...

So the issue isn’t hostility to Christianity;

Of course not. Not believing certain things of the Bible, does not need to be hostile toward anyone practicing Bible religion.

You don't even have to be hostile to the Bible. I'm not hostile to the Koran, I just don't believe it, nor even care about it. Nor am I hostile to Muslims. (Unless of course they become hostile to non-Muslims, especially when commanded by the Koran.)

I created a thread requesting evidence for Biblical events: viewtopic.php?t=42683 If you can prove Biblical events by evidence, please do.

I don't try to prove the Bible true. I only believe, study, and teach as accurately as possible, what it says as being true.

I only disprove accusers, that say the Bible is a lie.

That said, there is independent evidence for two important Bible truths: 1) That the present universe was created as is, without any pre-Big Bang mass of hot gas and debris. 2) That man is created in the image of God, apart from all animals of the earth.

I especially recommend that you read this particular post: viewtopic.php?p=1179052#p1179052

Be glad too...

And, in conclusion so far:
1. Your reasons for not believing the sun and moon standing still, are not sufficient to disprove supernatural events. By definition, the supernatural cannot possibly be disproven, nor proven, naturally.

Disbelief in the supernatural, therefore, is only by having faith in natural things alone, since natural things cannot disprove, nor prove, the supernatural.

2. Recorded eyewitness accounts are de facto direct evidence, that may be confirmed as true evidence, or disproven as false evidence.

When a person testifies in court of law, it's entered as evidence. If the testimony is proven false, then it's entered as false evidence, which can be perjury.

3. Anyone declaring faith or disbelief in an eyewitness account, is no longer an objective observer and skeptic, especially if accusing the eyewitness of lying...

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #68]

Thank you, RBD, for clarifying your view. I appreciate your engagement. However, I still see several problems in your reasoning that prevent it from being epistemically sound.

1. Eyewitness testimony is a kind of claim, not automatically evidence of truth.

“Recorded eyewitness testimony is itself defined as firsthand direct evidence… So long as no evidence disproves it, then it can be accepted as true in historical research, and judged as true in court of law.”

That’s not how evidentiary reasoning works in either history or law.
In law, testimony counts as evidence, but its truth value must still be established through cross-examination, corroboration, and consistency with physical facts. Courts do not accept testimony as true simply because no one disproved it. A claim that “no one has disproved” is not thereby verified. Otherwise, every unrefuted ghost story would qualify as “accepted as true.”

Historians treat ancient writings the same way: the Bible, the Qur’an, the Iliad, and the Annals of Rome are all claims that must be tested against independent archaeological, textual, and cultural data. “Eyewitness” in a theological text written decades or centuries later is not the same as eyewitness testimony recorded under oath in a court. Those who allegedly witnessed the alleged events in the Bible did not write the Bible on the day the alleged events took place.

2. Absence of contradiction is not evidence of truth.

“So long as none exists to contradict the Bible, then I objectively read all other books to see if they agree or disagree.”

That’s a textbook argument from ignorance: assuming a claim is true because it has not been disproved.
By the same logic, the Qur’an would be “true” so long as no one disproves it, and Hindu miracle claims would be “true” until falsified. Critical inquiry does not begin by presuming any text infallible; it begins by withholding belief until sufficient evidence warrants acceptance. There are many religions and there are many religious books. They all contradict each other.

3. Circular reasoning remains circular even when denied.

“I can objectively say that the Koran is not true, because I objectively conclude the Bible remains unerringly true.”

But that “objective conclusion” rests precisely on the presupposition you started with - that the Bible is unerringly true. This is a self-validating loop, not an independent verification.
To claim objectivity, one must evaluate the Bible by the same external standards applied to any other text: empirical corroboration, internal consistency, and independent attestation. Otherwise, you’re merely asserting faith, not demonstrating evidence.

4. The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

“Only accusers must prove their accusations…”

The person asserting that “the Bible is true” carries the burden of proof to use evidence to prove that the claim is true. A skeptic who withholds belief until evidence is presented is not making a counter-claim; they are maintaining epistemic neutrality. Your reasoning wrongly treats disbelief as an accusation. Many religious books make many claims. They contradict each other, and they contradict what we know from science. The Bible is not true until it is proven with evidence to be true.

5. Supernatural claims are not exempt from evidential standards.

“By definition, the supernatural cannot possibly be disproven…”

If a claim cannot be disproven even in principle, then it also cannot be verified even in principle. Such claims fall outside the domain of knowledge. They are matters of faith, but not of evidence.
If the sun literally stood still, that would have left astronomical and geological consequences observable today. The absence of such data is strong empirical evidence against the event - not because we “deny the supernatural,” but because testable reality shows no trace of it.

6. Faith is personal; evidence is public.

“Either by personal faith, and/or by generally accepted proof.”

Those are two distinct epistemic categories. Faith requires no external corroboration; evidence does. Mixing them only confuses subjective conviction with objective validation.
The former can inspire, but the latter convinces only through reproducible, intersubjective verification.

Testimony ≠ truth.
Absence of disproof ≠ proof.
Circular reasoning ≠ objectivity.
Faith ≠ evidence.
Non-falsifiable claims ≠ knowledge claims.

I remain open to independent corroborating evidence for Biblical claims - but until such evidence exists, faith in those events remains faith, not fact.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #64]

RBD, thank you for continuing the discussion.

You and I seem to be using “evidence” in very different ways.

Correct. I only acknowledge that any eyewitness testimony is direct evidence in history and law.

You are trying to argue whether that direct evidence is proven true or false, by independent evidence or contradiction.

Phrases like “I John saw these things” or “I Daniel understood” do not establish independent verification -

Nor do unproven accusations of the writers lying, mean they are lying...

2. Independent corroboration is the benchmark.

A benchmark for proving direct evidence is true. Independent contradiction is necessary to prove the direct evidence is false.

The biblical miracles lack such corroboration, and parallel “eyewitness” claims exist in other religions (Hindu, Islamic, Mormon) that you reject.

This implies that I reject them, because they are supernatural. False. I only reject other accounts that contradict Bible records. I do not reject all other records of the supernatural.

Bible grammatical and historical inerrancy compels me to believe in other gods and angels, than that of the Bible God and His holy angels.

3. Natural vs. supernatural isn’t prejudice, it’s method.
Science and critical history don’t “rule out” the supernatural by faith in nature; they simply require that a cause be testable and reproducible before we label it “known.” If an event leaves no detectable trace, then - whether natural or supernatural - it remains unknowable in empirical terms.

False. It is known by a record of it. It's only not provenas true fact by natural analysis.

Calling the unknown “supernatural” does not increase knowledge; it changes vocabulary.

Saying the unproven supernatural does not increase knowledge, changes the vocabulary of knowing vs proving.

Anyone only believing in the natural things, can limit their own knowledge, and conclude only natural things are known. Being a spiritual man, I know both natural and spiritual things.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Col 1:9
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

As for your claim that “the Bible is physical evidence of eyewitness accounts,” the same logic would make the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, and Book of Mormon direct evidence of their Gods’ revelations.

Correct. I do not reject any record of supernatural things, simply because they are supernatural. I only judge such things to be evil, or false, if they are contrary to the nature and works of the Bible God, and His holy angels.

Deu 32:17
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

I also believe other accounts of angels visiting men with new revelation, such as with Muhammed and J. Smith. They just aren't angels of the holy God.

Gal 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

By the Bible record, there are other gods and angels than the Bible God and His holy angels, and were allowed to perform supernatural events, and recorded by others.

Afterall, Satan was allowed to ruin Job's life, through his own evil spiritual power upon natural things.

Historians cannot privilege one text over others without external support.

False. You are obviously not a trained historian nor court judge.

Historians often lean toward, or even choose particular records without independent confirmation nor contradiction. They will note the evidence is not proven conclusive, but they can certainly include it in their historical arguments. And judges direct juries to make conclusions on uncorroborated testimonial evidence, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about them.

If historians nor juries were not allowed to consider any evidence, that is not independently prove true, then much of historical analysis, and trial by jury would not be allowed.

Your independent demand for accepting direct evidence, is yours personally alone, and is not shared by trained historians and judges.

So, I’m not denying that the Bible is evidence of belief; I’m saying belief and event are different categories.

You are denying that Bible is evidence of witnessed events. Once again, show anywhere in the Bible, that the writer does not record an event, but only speaks of believing in an event.

Until then, your personal disbelief, does not even allow you to discern the difference between recorded events, vs recorded beliefs in events.

Until a claim shows independent confirmation, it remains testimony - sincere perhaps, but not verifiable knowledge.

Until a claim shows independent confirmation, it remains testimony - true perhaps, but not verified evidence.

It may help to note that professional historians of antiquity - including many who are personally Christian - assess biblical testimony using the same critical tools they apply to every other ancient source.

Of course. The problem is when people don't review the Bible like any other book of written accounts, and begin to insert their own personal beliefs and interpretations, rather than allow the Book to speak for itself...

Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina) argues that the New Testament preserves valuable early traditions about Jesus but that its authors wrote decades later, drawing on oral sources, theology, and community memory. He treats the Gospels as historical data filtered through belief, not as direct eyewitness reports.

And pseudo Bible 'scholars', who declare that the accounts are not recorded as claimed, only show themselves unbelievable scholars with personal bias against the Bible.

Like any other disbeliever, that don't believe, that John wrote I, John.... They just like to justify themselves by pseudo-literary fiat.

Paula Fredriksen (Boston University / Hebrew University), likewise a believing scholar, accepts that Jesus was crucified under Pilate because it is attested by multiple independent sources and fits the political context - but she distinguishes that from miracle claims, which lack independent corroboration.

And, so long as she isn't also accusing the writers of lying about His resurrection 3 days later, then she remains a 'believing' Bible scholar. However, if she does not claim belief in the direct evidence testimony of His resurrection, then she remains a 'skeptical' Bible scholar. Not a believer in the recorded testimony.

N. T. Wright (former Oxford professor and Anglican bishop) defends the resurrection as a historical inference from the rise of early Christian belief, not because any contemporaneous document proves it.

And so, he remains a believing Bible scholar.

Even his apologetic case concedes that we have no surviving eyewitness diaries or official records.

This of course edges on the false statement, that there is no direct evidence for such events. The gospels are eyewitness diaries. No Judean nor Roman gvt record is made of His resurrection.

Across the field, historians apply the same evidentiary hierarchy:
1. Primary sources written near the event

Being direct evidence, including if written after the event. People can argue it it is a true record or not, but there is no argument that it is a primary source of direct evidence.

Revelation was written during and after the events recorded by John himself, unless he was instructed not to:

Rev 2:1
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;

Rev 10:4
And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

2. Multiple independent attestations

False. One independent account plus the direct account, is two records of the same thing.

A personal demand for multiple is as subjective as near: How many is multiple, and how near is near...

Perhaps your personal demand for multiple, is to rule out the one confirming account of the crucifixion darkness over all the land of Palestine/Greece?

3. Coherence with known background data

Correct. Bible internal inerrancy intelligently promotes faith in Bible records.

4. The principle of analogy - preferring explanations consistent with well-established natural processes unless evidence forces a new category.

Such as the category of recorded supernatural events, which de facto cannot be explained by natural means...

By these standards, the crucifixion itself rates as historically probable (given overlapping sources and Roman practice), while supernatural events - resurrection, angelic visions, cosmic darkness - remain theologically claimed but historically unverified.

False. Remain historically claimed but historically unverified.

Only personal bias refuses to accept the historical fact, that the events are recorded eyewitness accounts, not recorded 'beliefs' in such things...

So when I ask for corroboration, I’m not applying a special bias against Christianity;

Compassionist said
I conclude that this is because the Bible is lying about the Biblical God making the sun and the moon stand still.


Not when you are accusing the Bible writers of lying, without contrary evidence. Which has nothing to do with Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam, who all believe in the OT testimonies, if not also the New.

You're really going to have to drop the 'objective skeptic' role, so long as you continue to claim the Bible is lying. otherwise, trying to argue as an objective skeptic, only disqualifies the biased integrity of your arguments.

The same would be for me, if as a confirmed believer in Bible records, I also tried to sell myself as an objective skeptic...