Can you please provide evidence for these Biblical events?

[Compassionist]

Can you please provide evidence for the following Biblical events?

1. Creation Miracles (Genesis 1–3)

Creation of the universe: God creates light, sky, land, seas, plants, stars, animals, and humans in six days.
Creation of angels: Implied in passages like Job 38:4–7; often considered an early act before physical creation.
Creation of Adam and Eve: God forms Adam from dust and breathes life into him; Eve is made from Adam’s rib.
Creation of other organisms: All species of plants and animals are said to have been created by divine command.
The Garden of Eden: A paradise created for Adam and Eve.
The Fall: The serpent speaks; Adam and Eve eat forbidden fruit and are evicted from Eden; curses are pronounced.

2. Early Genesis Miracles

The mark and protection of Cain (Genesis 4:15).
The longevity of pre-Flood humans (many living 900+ years).
Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6–9): God floods the entire world, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark.
The rainbow covenant: God sets a rainbow as a sign of the promise never again to flood the earth.
Confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11): Humanity’s speech is divided, and people scatter across the world.

3. Miracles in the Patriarchal Era (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph)

Call of Abram: God speaks directly to Abram (Genesis 12).
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Fire and brimstone from heaven (Genesis 19).
Lot’s wife turned to salt (Genesis 19:26).
Birth of Isaac to elderly Sarah (Genesis 21).
God’s testing of Abraham: A ram provided in place of Isaac (Genesis 22).
Jacob’s ladder dream and wrestling with God (Genesis 28; Genesis 32).
Joseph’s prophetic dreams and interpretations (Genesis 37–41).

4. Miracles of Moses and the Exodus

The burning bush (Exodus 3).
Staff turned into a serpent (Exodus 4).
The Ten Plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7–12):

1. Water to blood
2. Frogs
3. Gnats or lice
4. Flies
5. Livestock disease
6. Boils
7. Hail
8. Locusts
9. Darkness
10. Death of the firstborn
The Passover protection (Israelites spared).
Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14).
Pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, guiding Israel.
Manna and quail were provided in the wilderness.
Water from the rock (Exodus 17).
Mount Sinai theophany: God’s voice, thunder, lightning, and tablets of stone.
Bronze serpent healing (Numbers 21).
Aaron’s rod budding (Numbers 17).
Moses’ radiant face after speaking with God (Exodus 34).

5. Miracles in the Time of Joshua, Judges, and Kings

Jordan River stops flowing so Israel can cross (Joshua 3).
Walls of Jericho fall (Joshua 6).
The sun stands still (Joshua 10).
Gideon’s fleece tests (Judges 6).
Samson’s strength feats (Judges 14–16).
Fire consumes Elijah’s offering on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18).
Elijah raises the widow’s son (1 Kings 17).
Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2).
Elisha parts the Jordan, purifies water, multiplies oil, raises the Shunammite’s son, feeds 100 men with loaves, heals Naaman’s leprosy, and makes an iron axe-head float (2 Kings 2–6).
The shadow on the sundial goes backwards for King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).
Angelic destruction of the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19).
Daniel’s survival in the lions’ den (Daniel 6).
Three men survive the fiery furnace (Daniel 3).
Handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5).

6. Miracles in the Intertestamental and New Testament Era

Zechariah was struck mute until John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1).
Virgin (immaculate) conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1; Luke 1).
Star of Bethlehem guiding the Magi (Matthew 2).
Angelic announcements to Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds.
John the Baptist’s prophetic calling before birth.

7. Miracles Performed by Jesus

Turning water into wine (John 2).
Healing the sick, blind, deaf, and lame (many Gospels).
Cleansing lepers (Matthew 8).
Casting out demons (Mark 5, etc.).
Feeding 5,000 (Matthew 14) and feeding 4,000 (Matthew 15).
Walking on water (Matthew 14).
Calming the storm (Mark 4).
Raising Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5).
Healing the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8).
Healing the bleeding woman (Mark 5).
Restoring sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10).
Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11).
The Transfiguration (Matthew 17).
Paying temple tax with a coin in a fish’s mouth (Matthew 17).
Cursing the barren fig tree (Mark 11).
The resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20).
Post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24; John 21).
Ascension into heaven (Acts 1).

8. Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles

Tongues of fire and the gift of languages at Pentecost (Acts 2).
Peter and John heal a lame man (Acts 3).
Peter raises Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead (Acts 9).
Paul blinds and heals various people (Acts 13–28).
Earthquake freeing Paul and Silas from prison (Acts 16).
Paul survives a viper bite (Acts 28).
Philip’s teleportation (Acts 8).
Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for lying (Acts 5).

9. Apocalyptic and Prophetic Miracles

Visions of Heaven and angels (Revelation 4–5).
Trumpet and bowl judgments: cosmic catastrophes, locusts, plagues, blood rivers, darkness.
Two witnesses calling down fire (Revelation 11).
The New Jerusalem descending from heaven (Revelation 21).
Creation of a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21–22).
God dwelling with humanity eternally - the final miracle of restoration.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #40]

Thank you, 1213. You’ve raised three issues worth clarifying - the meaning of “divine,” the nature of faith, and the question of what “god” means.

1. On Jesus being called “divine”

When Christians say Jesus is divine, they usually mean of the same nature as God - not merely indwelt by God.
That’s the point of the Nicene formulation: “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.”
John 1:1 and John 20:28 were interpreted that way by later theologians precisely because they appeared to blur the boundary between God and Jesus.
Whether one agrees or not, the texts are ambiguous enough that centuries of Christians debated their meaning - which shows that even within Christianity, there isn’t clarity about what “divine” means.

2. On “faith” in science vs. faith in religion

Trust in science is not faith in authority; it’s confidence in a method that corrects itself through transparency and replication.
I accept the age of the Earth and the fact of evolution not because scientists are infallible, but because the measurements (radiometric dating, cosmic background radiation, DNA phylogeny, etc.) are publicly verifiable, and if those data were wrong, the conclusions would change.

Religious faith, by contrast, commits to a conclusion first and interprets everything around it. That’s the crucial difference between provisional trust and unconditional belief.

3. On redefining “god” as “whatever one serves”

If we stretch “god” to mean whatever motivates action, then everyone has a “god”: money, justice, romantic love, survival, compassion.
But in that case, the word loses its theological content.
An atheist can care about truth, compassion, and welfare of sentient beings without worshipping them.
Calling those values “gods” adds no understanding - it only changes labels, which creates confusion.

The Matthew 25 passage you quoted beautifully expresses ethical empathy: feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, helping the imprisoned.
Those actions are praiseworthy whether or not one believes in divine reward or punishment.
If compassion is good only because it earns eternal life, it ceases to be compassion and becomes self-interest.
The moral worth lies in caring because relieving suffering matters.

So yes - I agree that kindness, honesty, and service are important. Where we differ is in whether those values require a supernatural source. For me, empathy, reason, and shared sentience are sufficient foundations for ethics. That's why I am a vegan. They need no higher authority to make them meaningful.

[1213]

When Christians say Jesus is divine, they usually mean of the same nature as God - not merely indwelt by God.

Ok, Bible tells there is only one true God and the God is greater than Jesus. That is why I think it is wrong to call Jesus the God. But, I don't think it is very bad, because also Moses was called a god in the Bible.

Trust in science is not faith in authority; it’s confidence in a method that corrects itself through transparency and replication.

If we believe you the authority.

Religious faith, by contrast, commits to a conclusion first and interprets everything around it.

By what I see, "scientific" world view is the same, it starts from the idea that there is no God, and then fits everything it finds to that conclusion. That is why we have for example the evolution theory and the theory of late tectonics, that are not very reasonable and not very scientific.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #42]

Thank you, 1213. I agree that the Bible repeatedly distinguishes God from Jesus (e.g., John 14:28 – “The Father is greater than I”), and that later Trinitarian formulations go well beyond the earliest texts. It’s always helpful to clarify that distinction.

“If we believe you the authority. ”

I don’t ask anyone to take me - or any scientist - as an authority. I am anti-authoritarian. Science is also anti-authoritarian. The strength of science is precisely that it doesn’t depend on trusting individuals. Its conclusions must be replicable by anyone, regardless of personal belief. If an experiment or observation fails to reproduce, the claim is revised or discarded. That openness to correction is the opposite of authority-based faith.

“The scientific worldview starts from the idea that there is no God.”

That's false. It starts from a methodological rule, not a metaphysical claim: explain phenomena using causes that can be tested and observed. That rule doesn’t deny God; it simply sets divine action outside the boundaries of what can be measured. A scientist can personally believe or disbelieve in God, but the method remains the same.

As for evolution and plate tectonics, they’re not dogmas but cumulative explanations built on independent lines of evidence - genetics, radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, the fossil record for evolution; seafloor magnetic striping, earthquake patterns, and GPS data for tectonics. Each line could, in principle, falsify the theory if the data didn’t fit. Yet every decade adds more confirming observations.

So science isn’t a worldview that “starts from atheism.” It’s a tool for sorting what we can know from what we can only speculate about. People of many faiths and none use that same tool because its reliability doesn’t depend on belief - it depends on results. Religions are the total opposite of that. Religions champion faith despite a total lack of results. I have prayed to many Gods of many religions to show up and prevent all suffering, injustice, and death, and make all living things flourish forever, but none have.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #39]

Compassionist,

I agree with you that we need evidence to accept these (and any) events (or beliefs). But what standard of evidence? We can't get 100% certainty in possibly anything outside of pure mathematics and definitions, so celestial writing isn't required. Inferences to the best explanation, using normal historical, scientific, and philosophical criteria are what we should be shooting for.

In this thread you've asked for evidence for the claims, not an argument for the inspiration of the Bible as a whole. In that context, the Bible is simply a collection of historical documents, not one book. Therefore, a case for one event does not rely on the reliability of the whole collection of texts. And using standard historical methods, the reliability of an event doesn't even rely on the full reliability of the text it is found in. Historical texts can be right about some things and wrong about others. Historical texts can be right about the general event and get some details wrong.

As far as my choice goes, I chose the resurrection to begin with not because it is the centerpiece of Christian theology, but because I think it is part of the case to trust many of the other miraculous claims.

If you disagree with any of the points, please share why. If not, then we are taking it step by step.

Step 1: The Facts

1. Jesus was buried in a tomb

Do you agree with this?

Still to come:

2. His tomb was later found empty.
3. People claimed post-mortem appearances.
4. The Christian movement arose centered on resurrection belief.

Step 2: Explanation of the Facts

Step 3: Implications of the Facts especially in regards to God's existence

[Compassionist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #44]

Before discussing whether Jesus was buried in a tomb, I think we need to establish whether Jesus the Son of God - a divine-human being - existed at all.

Historians can and do debate the existence of a Jewish preacher named Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. But that’s a far cry from evidence that this person was divine - born of a virgin, performing miracles, crucified and resurrected. Those are supernatural claims, and so far, there is no physical or genetic evidence for them.

If the claim were biological - that God impregnated Mary without human sperm - then one might expect some trace of half-divine DNA or other unique biological markers preserved in relics such as alleged hair, blood, or bones. But no authentic, verifiable DNA samples of Jesus exist. Every purported relic (the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the “holy nails,” etc.) has failed independent scientific verification.

Modern genetics knows what a human genome looks like - 23 pairs of chromosomes from two human parents. There is no known mechanism for “divine chromosomes.” If Jesus truly were part divine, his DNA would have had to differ from human norms in measurable ways, and that difference could be detected today. None has ever been demonstrated.

So the historical question (“Was there a Jewish preacher crucified under Pilate?”) and the theological question (“Was this being the incarnate Son of God?”) are entirely different. The first is a matter of ancient history; the second, so far, remains unsupported by any empirical evidence.

Until genetic evidence appears that proves Jesus as the Son of God, belief in Jesus as the Son of God rests on faith, not on verifiable data.

[Zzyzx]

WHY is Jesus or anything he might have said or done NOT mentioned by any contemporary) historian, chronicler, recorder, or anyone else?

The earliest complete Bible is the Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century manuscript that contains the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the New Testament

The bible is compiled from writings that are, no longer available, from centuries earlier (copies of copies by hand) – and thereafter edited, revised, translated, reedited, re-revised, added to and subtracted from.

The gospels were written 40 to 60 or more years later by people whose true identity is unknown to theologians and scholars, and who cannot be shown to have personally witnessed anything Jesus may have said or done.

The non-biblical sources often cited, Josephus, Tacitus, and Piney the Younger ware all born years after Jesus is said to have died. Therefore, they cannot have had personal knowledge or witnessing of anything Jesus may have said or done. The could report ONLY what they heard from others -- hearsay, rumor, folklore, myth, legend, etc.

[1213]

...
“The scientific worldview starts from the idea that there is no God.”

That's false....

So, it does not start with what can be seen and then making theories about that without any anticipations?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #47]

1213, the scientific method doesn’t begin with the belief that there is no God; it begins with the principle that explanations must be testable and observable. That’s not metaphysical atheism - it’s methodological humility. There are both religious and secular scientists. You could become a scientist if you wanted to. You could get a Bachelor's degree in Biology, which would help you understand evolution. You could get a Bachelor's degree in Geology, which would help you understand plate tectonics.

Science starts with evidence - what can be checked, not what can’t. When we study gravity, we don’t deny angels - we just note that invoking angels doesn’t yield testable predictions. We can't count angels or measure their weight. We can count humans and measure their weight. A man who weighs 60 kg on Earth weighs only 10 kg on the Moon because the gravity on the Moon is 1/6th of the gravity on Earth.

Science doesn’t presuppose that God doesn’t exist; it doesn't presuppose that God exists either. It asks for evidence for the existence of God. Just as it asks for evidence for the existence of everything else that is claimed to exist e.g. fairies, leprechauns, Big Foot, aliens, angels, demons, dragons, unicorns, etc. It simply refuses to assume any explanation before the data justify it. Starting with observation isn’t bias - it’s how we keep every claim, religious or otherwise, accountable to reality. Religions have faith in the existence of God or Gods. Science doesn't operate using faith. It works with evidence.

If all you use is faith, then how do you know what is true? How do you know that Christianity is true and all the other religions are false?

Let's consider this scenario: the dead body of a man has been found. He was strangled to death, and the body was dumped in the forest. If you use only faith, how will you know who murdered the man? Let's say the forensic experts found skin cells belonging to another man under the fingernails of the dead man. They did a DNA test and found a match in the criminal record database. The cells came from a known drug dealer. He also has scratch marks on his face. So, the police arrest him, and he is put on trial. He denies that he killed anyone. He claims he scratched himself by accident. He asks that the jury have faith that another man killed the man who was strangled to death. Should the jury just have faith that another man strangled the dead man found in the forest? Absolutely not. They should examine the DNA evidence and the scratch marks on the face of the drug dealer and draw their conclusion from the evidence.

That’s the difference between faith and science. Faith starts with a claim and tries to hold on to it no matter what evidence exists. Science starts with evidence and changes its conclusions if the evidence changes.

If we relied only on faith, no murder would ever be solved, no disease ever cured, and no plane ever built that could fly. The scientific method works precisely because it demands verification, not belief.

If faith were the only method, every truth would be unknowable - everyone could “believe” in a different killer, and all would claim to be right. This is exactly what happens with religions - the adherents of each religion believe that they are right even though there is no evidence to prove what they claim. They claim that their religious books are true despite a lack of evidence for the alleged events in the books, self-contradictions, mutual contradictions, and scientific contradictions, e.g. the Quran of Islam, the Bible of Christianity, the Tripitaka of Buddhism, the Guru Granth Sahib of Sikhism, the Agamas of Jainism, Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahaism, etc.

[1213]

...Science starts with evidence - what can be checked, not what can’t. ...

Yes, that is what I meant. And that means, there is no assumptions, or beliefs, it goes directly what the person has observed and thus it is atheistic.

If all you use is faith, then how do you know what is true? How do you know that Christianity is true and all the other religions are false?
...

Is God real, i believe so. But to me faith means loyalty, not belief. I want to be loyal to God, because I think He and his teachings are good.

And the other religions, to me it is more about is it good, not about is it true. I don't think the other religions are good, but many of them can have issues that could be true.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #49]

Thank you, 1213. I appreciate your thoughtful clarification. I agree that science aims to base its conclusions on observation and testing rather than faith. But I would like to unpack two points you raised:

1. Science isn’t “atheistic”; it’s methodologically neutral.

Science neither affirms, nor denies gods - it simply restricts itself to testable phenomena.
This is sometimes misunderstood as “atheistic,” but that’s a category mistake. Atheism is a metaphysical position (“there are no gods”); science is a methodological stance (“let’s test claims empirically”).
A religious person and an atheist both use the same method when doing science, because science depends on reproducible evidence, not faith commitments.

2. Faith as loyalty vs. faith as belief

I respect your definition of faith as loyalty - it’s an ethically meaningful concept. But epistemically, faith-as-loyalty doesn’t establish truth. One can be loyal to a false idea or a mistaken teacher.
The truth matters, so loyalty must be conditional on truth, not the other way around. Loyalty without verification risks perpetuating error.
So I’d ask: How do you determine that the being you are loyal to is real and good, rather than inherited from culture?

3. “Goodness” and “truth” are distinct categories

You wrote that for you, the question about other religions is “more about is it good, not about is it true.”
But if a religion’s core claims are factually false (for example, about creation, miracles, or divine revelations), then even if some teachings sound good, the system as a whole rests on unverified assumptions.
A moral system can be “good” without being “true,” and vice versa - but when a religion claims both moral and factual authority, the truth-claims need the same scrutiny as any other assertion about reality.

Evidence matters.
Goodness is important.
Loyalty can be admirable when directed toward genuine goodness.

Where we differ:

I require independent evidence before concluding that any deity exists.
You appear to start with faith or loyalty to Christianity, and interpret everything through that lens. Did you become a Christian after objectively analysing the evidence for all religious and scientific claims about reality, or were you born into a Christian family?