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.

[RBD]

[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.

False. Faith is required when evidence isn't proven true. Believing the direct evidence of an eyewitness, does not need independent confirmation. Faith in unerring accounts, is intelligent faith.

So long as the Bible is not proven false in any thing, then anyone can reasonably believe all the things therein are unerringly true. Reasonable faith is by intelligent knowledge of the evidence...

Your argument of 'blind' faith without any evidence, does not apply to Bible eyewitness evidence.

Science and reason, by contrast, come to a belief because of evidence.

Correct. Reasonable faith by scientific, historical, and legal record.

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.

Your personal rejection of recorded testimony as direct historical and legal evidence, is yours alone. It does not apply to the historical and legal record.

If faith can justify one religion, it can justify all religions equally -

Not the same faith from different evidence.

and therefore no religion is justifiable by faith alone.

Especially not the Bible, where faith alone is dead, being blind without evidence:

Jas 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Heb{11:1}
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith in the Bible record, is by evidence of the intelligent unerring record of the Bible...

2. “Objective Faith” Is a Contradiction

You suggest there can be “objective faith in the supernatural.”

Objective faith in recorded evidence, is by reason of the evidence. Subjective faith without evidence, is blind being alone.

I can continue to read the Bible objectively with faith in the record. I have yet to see anyone read the Bible objectively, with disbelief in the Bible. Especially not when accusing the Bible writers of error, contradiction, and/or lying...

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.

I've ceased arguing with circular natural arguments against the supernatural.

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. That’s not faith - that’s prudence.
Faith in naturalism is only believing in natural evidence.

And accusing the supernatural record of lying, is by only believing in natural evidence. That's not withholding belief, but imprudent accusation.

No religion has ever discovered a single natural law,

Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Light is divided from darkness. Science confirms that light and darkness do not intersect.


Conclusions so far:
1. Supernatural does not exist, because it is not naturally confirmed.

Natural things cannot prove nor disprove spiritual things, that are not natural.

2. Subjective natural faith vs objective reason

Rejecting the supernatural by trust in natural things alone, is subjective natural faith. It's not an objective disproof.

3. No evidence for the supernatural. Vs no proof of the supernatural

Recorded eyewitness accounts are evidence of things witnessed.

4. Faith by evidence vs proven evidence

Faith in direct evidence of eyewitness testimony, is not evidence proven true. Evidence not proven true, is still historical and legal evidence that can be believed and judged by. No proof of the eyewitness evidence is necessary for faith and judgment, so long as there is no objective disproof.

5. Subjective rejection is not objective skepticism.

Anyone rejecting the evidence of an eyewitness account, without independent proof otherwise, is not an objective skeptic, but a subjective accuser.

6. Scientific knowledge is not all knowledge.

Knowing something scientifically, does not mean it's the only thing that can be known. Eyewitness testimony is knowledge being testified of. Natural knowledge based upon natural proof alone, is not the only knowledge.

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

This conclusion is not objective skepticism, but subjective accusation. It's based solely upon faith in natural things alone, that personally demands natural proof for anything to exist.

It must naturally accuse any direct evidence of an eyewitness supernatural event, as a lie.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

Direct vs. Independent Evidence

RBD, thank you for your detailed reply. You’ve clarified your framework: eyewitness testimony counts as “direct evidence,” and you regard independent corroboration as unnecessary unless contradiction arises. The problem is that this reverses the standard epistemic hierarchy.

In historical method, direct evidence is any testimony purporting to come from observation, but independent verification is what distinguishes testimony from knowledge. Testimony alone is evidence of a claim, not of an event’s occurrence.

In law, a witness statement is admissible as evidence, but not necessarily sufficient for conviction. Cross-examination, motive, internal consistency, and corroboration are all necessary to reduce reasonable doubt. Ancient anonymous writings, which cannot be cross-examined, have permanently high uncertainty.

Historians therefore rank sources probabilistically:

1. Primary contemporary records written near the event.
2. Independent attestation by unrelated witnesses.
3. Coherence with established data.
4. Analogy with well-understood causal processes.

Calling a document “direct evidence” does not automatically authenticate its contents any more than saying “I, Julius Caesar, write these words” would prove authorship if found centuries later. Proximity and verification are what transform testimony into probable fact.

The Category Error of “Spiritual Knowledge”

You invoke 1 Corinthians 2 to argue that the “spiritual man” perceives truths inaccessible to the “natural man.” But in philosophy, knowledge means justified true belief - a belief that can be shown true by reasons or evidence accessible to all rational minds.

Private conviction may be psychologically certain, but epistemically it remains unverifiable. Mystical certainty, by definition, excludes the very intersubjective test that converts belief into knowledge.

Thus, when you write that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” you are affirming a different epistemology - one that defines “knowing” as “believing by revelation.” That is coherent as theology but not as historiography. History is a public discipline: its claims must be checkable by those who do not already share the premises of faith. Otherwise, we confuse internal conviction with external justification.

Inconsistency Regarding Other Scriptures

You state that you “do not reject supernatural accounts simply because they are supernatural,” yet you reject non-biblical ones if they “contradict Bible records.” This is precisely the circular privileging that critical scholarship seeks to avoid.

The reasoning runs as follows:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. Therefore, anything contradicting the Bible is false.
3. Therefore, the Bible remains inerrant.

This is not evidence-based reasoning but self-validation by prior commitment. It treats the Bible as its own standard of truth - the very thing you accuse skeptics of doing when they rely on methodological naturalism.

If an angel appears to Muhammad or Joseph Smith, you dismiss it because the Bible predicts “false angels.” But that predictive clause itself depends on the prior belief in Biblical authority. The criterion is thus internal coherence of belief, not external verification of events.

Critical inquiry reverses the order: it asks which sources are corroborated, not which ones conform to a chosen canon. Your framework, therefore, privileges theology over historiography while claiming historical neutrality.

Misuse of Legal and Historical Analogy

You appeal to legal practice: juries may convict based on a single credible witness. Yet in both law and history, “credibility” is never presumed; it must be demonstrated. Courts test for bias, motive, consistency, and possibility of error.

In ancient history, none of those criteria can be tested: the witnesses are unknown, the manuscripts are copies of copies, and the events are non-reproducible. That is why historians classify sources not as “proven true” or “false,” but as “more probable” or “less probable.”

No modern court would accept an unsigned, decades-late account written by unknown parties about a miracle as sufficient for conviction. The historian’s task is therefore closer to forensic probability assessment than to juristic belief.

Philosopher C. A. J. Coady (in Testimony: A Philosophical Study, 1992) and historian R. G. Collingwood (in The Idea of History) both emphasize that testimony is valuable only when embedded in a reliable network of causal and institutional constraints. Lacking those, the evidential weight remains minimal.

The Fallacy of “Recorded = Real”

You repeatedly equate “recorded event” with “witnessed event,” and “witnessed event” with “historical fact.” This is a logical leap. A record is evidence that someone claimed an event occurred, not that it actually did.

The Gospels are theological stories. Their narrative function is to inspire faith, not to document forensics.

When you say “John wrote I, John,” that proves authorship no more than “I, Sherlock Holmes” would prove Sherlock Holmes’ existence in reality, instead of being a fictional character. Ancient authors often wrote pseudonymously to confer authority (a common practice in antiquity: cf. the Testament of Moses or Enoch).

To treat those signatures as self-authenticating is to apply a standard no historian accepts elsewhere. Imagine a Hindu citing “I, Arjuna, heard Krishna speak” as proof that Krishna is divine - you would rightly demand corroboration. By parity of reasoning, the same standard applies to all scriptures.

Standards of Historical Verification

You contest the principle of “multiple independent attestations,” arguing that even one confirming account suffices. But independence is the very key: multiple copies of the same tradition do not count as independent witnesses.

Matthew and Luke draw from Mark; John is theologically distinct but not demonstrably independent in source material. Therefore, we have literary amplification, not new witnesses. By analogy, if two thermometers derive their readings from the same sensor, they do not provide independent confirmation.

When you say that “Revelation was written during and after the events recorded by John himself,” you assume both authorship and event. Yet that is precisely what is under question. Historians do not begin by assuming the text’s self-descriptions are literally factual; they evaluate them alongside other sources (Roman, Jewish, archaeological).

Your approach inverts the evidentiary order: it begins with faith in textual inerrancy and then interprets all data through that lens. Historical method begins with uncertainty and allows evidence to progressively constrain belief.

Objective Skepticism vs. Faith Commitment

You conclude that I must “drop the objective skeptic role” because I “accuse the Bible of lying.” But distinguishing false claims from false claimants is essential. To say “the Bible is wrong about the sun standing still” is not to say “its authors lied.” It is to note that pre-scientific cosmology generated a mythic narrative, later revealed to be false by observation.

Objective skepticism is not hostility; it is procedural humility. It says: “Until a claim is publicly verifiable, I will withhold assent.” That stance is what enables knowledge to grow rather than ossify.

Faith may inspire moral devotion, but it cannot demand epistemic exemption. If the same standard that validates Biblical miracles also validates Mormon or Hindu miracles, then either (a) all are true, or (b) testimonial sincerity is insufficient to establish truth. The consistent skeptic simply applies the same rule universally.

By contrast, the believer applies one standard to their text e.g. the Bible (acceptance by faith) and another to others e.g. the Vedas (rejection by contradiction). That asymmetry, not skepticism, reveals bias.

Verification Principle: A claim belongs to the realm of knowledge only if its truth conditions could, in principle, be tested by any rational agent equipped with sufficient data. Claims that rely on privileged revelation are epistemically private, not universally binding.

Ontological Modesty: To label an unexplained phenomenon “supernatural” is not to expand knowledge but to rename ignorance. The scientific stance does not exclude the supernatural by dogma; it simply refrains from asserting what cannot be tested.

Thus, when I request independent corroboration for alleged Biblical miracles, it is not prejudice against Christianity, but allegiance to a consistent epistemic method - the same one that allows us to distinguish astronomy from astrology, medicine from miracle, and history from hagiography.

Your framework asserts that the Bible is direct, self-authenticating evidence, and that spiritual discernment confirms its truth. Scientific framework holds that claims are not self-validating; they require causal and intersubjective evidence.

Where you see divine revelation, I see the natural evolution of belief systems shaped by environment and culture. Where you find confirmation in Scripture, I find the human longing for order, meaning, and transcendence - powerful, yes, but not proof.

Until a miracle claim produces publicly verifiable traces, it remains testimony: sincere perhaps, but epistemically unconfirmed. To treat it otherwise is to replace investigation with proclamation.

The Question of Divine Communication

If the Biblical God is truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then divine communication should be perfect in clarity, universality, and accessibility. Yet the medium chosen is a collection of human writings - anonymous, contradictory, and produced decades after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. A being capable of creating galaxies could easily write its message directly into the cosmos, using stars or universal signals comprehensible to all sentient beings. That such overwhelming clarity is absent poses a serious challenge to the coherence of the theistic model.

The Logical Structure of the Argument

1. If God is omniscient, He would know exactly what kind of evidence would convince every rational being of His existence and actions.
2. If God is omnipotent, He would be able to produce that evidence without error or delay.
3. If God is omnibenevolent, He would desire to remove unnecessary confusion, doubt, and religious conflict.
4. The actual world shows the opposite: many self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions, contradictory scriptures, and ambiguous historical claims.
5. Therefore, the hypothesis of an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God conflicts with the observed epistemic situation.

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Philosopher J. L. Schellenberg formulated this problem clearly: a perfectly loving God would ensure that every sincere seeker has unmistakable awareness of His existence. The continuing religious diversity, uncertainty, and silence of God suggest either that God does not exist, or that He is not omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent - or that divine intentions are non-human and indifferent to human moral enlightenment. Any of these options contradict the Biblical portrayal of a God who desires universal belief and salvation.

The Expected vs. the Observed

If an omnibenevolent deity genuinely wanted everyone to understand the truth, it could communicate through universal means:

By encoding moral and theological truths into the very constants of nature, visible to all observers;
By renewing revelation periodically in every language and culture through direct perception;
By providing replicable, empirically testable miracles rather than unverified ancient anecdotes.

What we observe instead are localized myths, ancient texts, and theological debates that depend on interpretation, translation, and authority - hallmarks of human cultural evolution rather than divine omniscience.

The Inconsistency Summarized

A truly omniscient being would know every person’s evidential threshold; an omnipotent being would have the power to meet it; and an omnibenevolent being would have the desire to do so. Yet allegedly divine revelation appears limited, inconsistent, and dependent on fallible human messengers. The most reasonable conclusion is that revelation reflects the cognitive and cultural limits of human originators rather than the intent of an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God.

If belief or disbelief carries eternal consequences, a just deity would remove ambiguity. The fact that doubt is possible, even rational, shows that moral worth cannot depend on the acceptance of unverifiable ancient testimonies.

Conclusion

The reliance on fallible human texts instead of universal divine revelation undermines the claim of divine perfection. The ambiguity of scripture and the absence of unambiguous cosmic communication are precisely what we would expect if the stories are human creations seeking moral meaning in a silent universe.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #71]

A. Faith, Evidence, and the Burden of Proof

RBD, thank you again for engaging so carefully. Your position can be summarized as follows:

1. Eyewitness testimony is sufficient “direct evidence.”
2. Faith is rational when that testimony is uncontradicted.
3. Disbelief without disproof is “subjective accusation.”

Each of these reverses the ordinary direction of justification. In logic and law alike, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic. “Unfalsified” is not the same as “verified.”

A claim can remain unrefuted yet still unproven. We do not conclude that fairies, leprechauns and unicorns exist merely because no one can prove their nonexistence. The rational posture toward unverified testimony is suspension of judgment, not belief by default.

Faith may choose to believe unverified reports; knowledge cannot. To call that choice “intelligent faith” is to conflate trust with truth-tracking.

B. “Intelligent Faith” and the Category Error of Evidence

You write that “faith in unerring accounts is intelligent faith.” But “unerring” is the very point in dispute; asserting it as premise begs the question.

If a text’s truth is what licenses faith, and faith is what justifies the text’s truth, the argument forms a closed loop. No independent variable ever enters the system.

In epistemology, a belief is rational only if the evidence would make it probable even to a neutral observer. A faith that remains persuasive only to those already convinced is psychologically certain but epistemically circular.

Thus, while you may have confidence in the Bible’s reliability, that confidence is not an evidential property of the text; it is a psychological property of the believer.

C. “Objective Faith” as a Contradiction

You contrast “objective faith in recorded evidence” with “subjective faith without evidence.” Yet faith that depends on accepting one religious book as infallible is not objective; it is canonical.

Objectivity requires neutrality toward outcome: a readiness to abandon the claim if contrary evidence appears. But your definition of faith explicitly forbids that. Therefore, by philosophical standards, “objective faith” is self-contradictory.

One may read the Bible objectively, or one may read it faithfully, but not both at once. Objectivity begins with suspension of assent; faith begins with commitment of assent. The two are epistemic opposites.

D. Supernatural Causation and Detectability

You decline to discuss what you call “circular natural arguments.” Yet circularity arises only when the conclusion repeats the premise. My premise is not “nature exists, therefore nature explains all.” It is: any event that affects matter must produce measurable consequences in matter.

If the Red Sea physically parted, the sea level, sediment, and geography would all have changed - and these would, in principle, be detectable. If nothing detectable occurred, then the claim “the Red Sea parted” lacks empirical content.

This is not prejudice against the supernatural; it is the logical requirement that causal statements entail observable effects. Otherwise, “A caused B” becomes indistinguishable from “nothing happened.”

A non-interacting deity is, by definition, empirically irrelevant; an interacting deity is empirically testable. You cannot have both immunity from test and influence on reality.

E. The Strawman of “Faith in Naturalism”

You suggest that withholding belief until evidence appears is “faith in naturalism.” That mischaracterizes the position.

Skepticism toward unverified claims is not an alternative faith; it is the absence of credulity. When a juror says, “I will wait for evidence,” we do not accuse them of having “faith in the defendant’s innocence.”

Faith asserts; skepticism defers. Prudence is not prejudice.

Likewise, to describe disbelief in the supernatural as “subjective natural faith” is to confuse psychological attitude with epistemic method. Methodological naturalism is not a creed; it is a procedural rule: limit claims to what can be tested. That is why science progresses and revelation does not - because the scientific method itself contains a mechanism for correction.

F. Your Six “Conclusions”

Let me address them one by one:

1. “Supernatural does not exist because it is not naturally confirmed.”
No. The correct statement is: there is no empirical warrant for positing the supernatural. Absence of confirmation suspends belief; it does not assert metaphysical impossibility.

2. “Rejecting the supernatural by trust in natural things alone is subjective natural faith.”
No, it is probabilistic reasoning. When every confirmed explanation is natural and none supernatural, induction favors naturalism. That is not “faith”; it is Bayesian updating.

3. “Recorded eyewitness accounts are evidence.”
Yes - evidence of what people claimed, not of what occurred. Historical disciplines assign degrees of credibility precisely because testimony is fallible.

4. “Faith in eyewitness testimony needs no proof.”
Then you remove faith from the realm of epistemology entirely. A belief that requires no verification cannot claim to be knowledge.

5. “Rejecting eyewitness evidence without contrary proof is subjective.”
No. Skepticism is the default until sufficient warrant arises. Otherwise, we would be obliged to believe every uncontradicted miracle claim in every religion.

6. “Scientific knowledge is not all knowledge.”
Correct - but all reliable public knowledge must be testable in principle. Private revelation may yield personal conviction, yet it remains epistemically private.

G. Accusation vs. Explanation

You write that my statement about the Bible “lying” is a subjective accusation. In context, “lying” was shorthand for “containing false claims,” not for “intentional deceit.” Ancient authors wrote within the cosmologies of their time. To recognize error is not to impute malice.

When we say “the Bible is wrong about the sun and the moon standing still,” we mean that astronomical evidence contradicts the literal claim. The choice is not between “truth” and “accusation,” but between ancient cosmology and modern observation.

Truth is correspondence between statement and reality. If observation disproves the statement, the statement is false - irrespective of motive. That is not hostility; it is intellectual honesty.

Thus, while I respect faith as a psychological phenomenon, I cannot treat it as an epistemic instrument. Faith may console, but only evidence can inform.

To confuse the two is to replace discovery with declaration - and to close, rather than open, the human mind to truth.

Conclusion

You and I differ not on sincerity but on the definition of knowledge.
For you, knowledge is justified trust in an allegedly inerrant Bible.
For me, knowledge is belief proportioned to evidence, always open to revision if new evidence is discovered.

Your standard - “not proven false, therefore true” - would validate every religious (e.g. the Vedas) and fictional book (e.g. Harry Potter series) on Earth. Mine - “not proven, therefore, not confirmed to be true” - validates none until proven with evidence.

The first yields conviction; the second yields progress. The first ends the inquiry; the second begins it.

[RBD]

[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.

Yes, it is. All evidence must be considered. If proven false, then dismissed. If proven true, then stated as fact. If not proven nor disproven, then available for historical arguments, and jury deliberation...

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.

In order to be stated as fact, or dismissed. Otherwise, they remain useful for historical arguments. And jury deliberation.

“Eyewitness” in a theological text written decades or centuries later is not the same as eyewitness testimony recorded under oath in a court.

It is for eyewitness character.

Calling them liars without proof, is false accusation.

Those who allegedly witnessed the alleged events in the Bible did not write the Bible on the day the alleged events took place.

Several did write at the same time. Moses on the mount, and John in heaven.

Personally dismissing them as liars does not apply to historical arguments, nor jury deliberation.

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.

That's a textbook argument for accusation: Assuming a claim has not been reviewed first.

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.

False. They can be considered true, though not proven true, so long as nothing disproves them.

However, with the Koran, Mohammed contradicts himself, when He claims to write for the God of Abraham, and then accuses the God of Abraham of lying when begetting a Son:

Psa 2:7
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

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.

Which is based upon objective study of the Bible first.

2Ti 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This is a self-validating loop, not an independent verification.

It's an unproven false accusation, that I assume the Bible is true, without first objectively studying the Bible.

It's also an unproven false accusation, that Moses and John did not write during their revelation from the God of Abraham and Jesus Christ...

To claim objectivity, one must evaluate the Bible by the same external standards applied to any other text:

Exactly. The problem is when people do not read the Bible with the same objective and grammatical integrity, as they do other books of record.

I have found this to be the case mostly among those committed to finding fault with the Bible, rather than first reading the Book with objective integrity, as I did as an independent skeptic, and still do as a confirmed believer.

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.

Correct. Even as anyone claiming it is not true, must prove it's a lie.

I claim the Bible is unerring. I therefore claim the Bible can be intelligently believed as true. Those claiming the Bible errs must prove their case, in order to say the Bible can't possibly be believed.

I have no argument with honest skeptics, that do not claim the Bible is true, nor is lying.

A skeptic who withholds belief until evidence is presented is not making a counter-claim; they are maintaining epistemic neutrality.

Correct. Which in this case does not include you:

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

You must prove the accusation of lying. You haven't done so: An eyewitness is not proven to lie, by lack of corroboration. A supernatural event cannot proven false by natural means alone.

5. Supernatural claims are not exempt from evidential standards.

By definition, the supernatural is exempt from natural evidence. What the natural world cannot explain, is called supernatural.

“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.

By definition, misquoting an argument out of context, cannot possibly disprove the argument in context…

RBD said
By definition, the supernatural cannot possibly be disproven, nor proven, naturally.


And by definition, purposely misquoting an argument out of context, concedes the argument in context. Which in this case, is simply the common definition of supernatural, that it cannot be explained, proven, nor disproven by natural means...

The principle of natural vs supernatural, is that the natural cannot possibly explain, prove, nor disprove the supernatural.

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.

Blind faith demands no evidence. Intelligent faith is by evidence. The Bible condemns the former and confirms the latter:

Heb{11:1}
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Jas 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


It's a false accusation, that my faith in the Bible is without evidence. The eyewitness evidence of the Bible, is the substance of my faith. And objective study of that evidence is intelligent faith.

Unintelligent disbelief and false accusations against the Bible, are based upon not believing the Bible evidence, without proving theeyewitness testimony false...

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

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

Unless, of course, it has to do with the sun and moon standing still. And also not when the crucifixion darkness over the land, is personally dismissed as unsatisfactory.

However, I remain open to independent corroborating evidence for Biblical error - but until such evidence exists, faith in those events remains intelligent, if not proven fact.

And in this case, there is no independent corroborating evidence for the Bible lying. Nor, that independent corroborating evidence for Biblical darkness over the land during Jesus' crucifixion, is false.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #74]

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 is a misunderstanding of evidentiary reasoning.
Testimony is a kind of evidence, but not proof of truth. In both law and historiography, testimony must be evaluated for reliability, consistency, proximity, and corroboration. A claim is not accepted as true merely because it is “not disproved.” Courts routinely reject uncorroborated eyewitness testimony when it conflicts with physical evidence or when reliability is compromised.

Ancient documents are not legal testimonies under oath; they are literary artefacts transmitted through layers of oral tradition, translation, and redaction. Hence, they must be assessed by critical methods - not presumed accurate unless falsified.

Calling them liars without proof, is false accusation.

Rejecting a claim as unverified is not the same as calling the claimant a liar. “Not proven” is epistemic neutrality, not moral condemnation. Historians are not in the business of proving deceit; they test whether claims meet evidential standards. To say that the Exodus or Resurrection lacks independent corroboration is simply to describe an evidential deficit - not to accuse anyone of perjury.

Several did write at the same time. Moses on the mount, and John in heaven.

That assertion itself rests entirely on the theological tradition you are trying to defend. The Pentateuch and Revelation are anonymous texts whose attributions are later ecclesial claims. No contemporary evidence links “Moses” or “John” directly to the composition of those works. To appeal to their authorship as proof of reliability is therefore circular: it assumes divine dictation to prove divine dictation.

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

That is precisely the argument from ignorance fallacy. The absence of contradiction is not positive evidence for truth. By that logic, every unfalsified religious text would be “true.” Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic miracle accounts would all hold equal epistemic standing until disproved - which is impossible when claims are unfalsifiable by design.

They can be considered true, though not proven true, so long as nothing disproves them.

That stance confuses possibility with probability. Many things can be “considered possible,” but rational belief requires proportional evidence. The fact that a claim cannot be disproved does not make it likely. Otherwise, we would have to equally “consider true” every competing divine revelation on Earth.

Which is based upon objective study of the Bible first.

An “objective study” that begins with the conviction that the Bible is unerring cannot yield independent verification; it merely reaffirms its presupposition. To claim objectivity, one must allow the same criteria - internal coherence, external corroboration, and consistency with observed reality - to confirm or disconfirm the text’s assertions. Selectively insulating one text from falsification standards is methodological bias.

Even as anyone claiming it is not true, must prove it's a lie.

No - the burden of proof always lies with the claimant. To assert “X is true” requires justification. Withholding belief until evidence is provided is not a counter-claim but epistemic humility. The default position is suspension of judgment until reasons justify assent. Otherwise, every unfalsified claim in human history would demand belief.

You must prove the accusation of lying… A supernatural event cannot proven false by natural means alone.

Supernatural claims, by definition, cannot be tested under natural evidence. That makes them unfalsifiable - and hence beyond the domain of knowledge. To say “it cannot be disproved” is to admit that it also cannot be verified. Such claims fall under personal faith, not public epistemology. The moment a statement ceases to be falsifiable, it exits the realm of evidence and enters the realm of belief.

By definition, the supernatural cannot possibly be disproven, nor proven, naturally.

Exactly - and therefore it cannot function as a premise in historical or scientific reasoning. Historians can only evaluate natural explanations within the evidential domain available to them. Once an explanation invokes an entity that is beyond testing, it ceases to be explanatory in any empirical sense.

Blind faith demands no evidence. Intelligent faith is by evidence. The Bible condemns the former and confirms the latter.

The phrase “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1) defines faith precisely as belief without direct evidence - otherwise it would be knowledge. Evidence that cannot be independently verified is not evidence in the public epistemic sense. “Intelligent faith” still belongs to the personal domain of conviction, not to the methodological standards of proof.

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

Faith may indeed be sincere and psychologically meaningful, but it is not epistemic justification. The default state of an uncorroborated claim is uncertainty, not truth by default. “Not yet disproved” does not equal “probably true.”

In short:

1. Testimony ≠ fact.
2. Absence of contradiction ≠ evidence.
3. Faith ≠ proof.
4. Unfalsifiable claims ≠ knowledge.
5. Burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

Conclusion
Your position conflates sincerity with certainty and absence of disproof with evidence. An honest skeptic suspends judgment until adequate verification exists. That is not bias; it is epistemic responsibility. The same standard applied to all texts - Bible, Qur’an, Vedas, or Norse sagas - ensures fairness and intellectual integrity. Until a claim meets those shared evidential criteria, it remains a matter of faith, not fact.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #70]

Direct vs. Independent Evidence

RBD, thank you for your detailed reply. You’ve clarified your framework: eyewitness testimony counts as “direct evidence,” and you regard independent corroboration as unnecessary unless contradiction arises.

It's the standard historical and legal definition of direct evidence, vs 2nd or 3rd hand evidence.

The problem is that this reverses the standard epistemic hierarchy.

Your problem is failing or refusing to understand the difference between acceptable evidence vs proven evidence. Firsthand testimony can be accepted in historical review and courts of law without corroboration, so long as the testimony is not disproven.

Without corroboration, the Bible evidence can be accepted as true. Without contradiction, the Bible evidence cannot be rejected as a lie.

Misuse of Legal and Historical Analogy

You appeal to legal practice: juries may convict based on a single credible witness. Yet in both law and history, “credibility” is never presumed; it must be demonstrated. Courts test for bias, motive, consistency, and possibility of error.

The defense' job is to find error, and possibly disprove it. Without doing so, it remains direct evidence for trial by jury. Without any need of corroboration.

No critical historian nor jurist dismisses eyewitness testimony, based solely upon no corroboration. Which was your first failed argument.

That is why historians classify sources not as “proven true” or “false,” but as “more probable” or “less probable.”

Exactly, so also with jury deliberation. No critical historian or jurist calls it a lie without proof.

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

Verification Principle: A claim belongs to the realm of knowledge only if its truth conditions could, in principle, be tested by any rational agent equipped with sufficient data.

Demanding natural evidence of spiritual things, is a non-starter by them that only have faith in the natural things.

Ontological Modesty: To label an unexplained phenomenon “supernatural” is not to expand knowledge but to rename ignorance.

Demanding natural evidence of spiritual things, is a non-starter by them that say all things spiritual are foolish.

Philosopher C. A. J. Coady (in Testimony: A Philosophical Study, 1992) and historian R. G. Collingwood (in The Idea of History) both emphasize that testimony is valuable only when embedded in a reliable network of causal and institutional constraints. Lacking those, the evidential weight remains minimal.

I.e. this natural man demands natural evidence for the supernatural event. But, at least he reserves some sense, that natural things may not be all there is. So, do you agree with him? The Bible supernatural evidence is minimal? Or, do you disagree and say it's just a lie?

[RBD]

The Category Error of “Spiritual Knowledge”

You invoke 1 Corinthians 2 to argue that the “spiritual man” perceives truths inaccessible to the “natural man.”

False. All people are born with spiritual intelligence, and therefore spiritual truth is accessible to all people. The Scripture only states the obvious: that the natural man personally chooses to reject spiritual things, because the spirit is foolishness to him. The natural man only has faith in natural things.

If an angel appears to Muhammad or Joseph Smith, you dismiss it because the Bible predicts “false angels.”

False again. Because such things are foolishness to you, there is no critical review that can be made between them.

The Bible reveals there are angels, and therefore Muhammad and Smith's testimony of inspiration by angels, can be true. But the Bible also reveals there are angels of God and lying angels. And since both Muhammed and Smith contradict themselves about the God of the Bible, then their inspiring angels can't be true.

You repeatedly equate “recorded event” with “witnessed event,” and “witnessed event” with “historical fact.”

Falsely worded. Quote me.

Only when there is sufficient corroborating evidence, can the recorded eyewitness be called historical fact.

Your framework asserts that the Bible is direct, self-authenticating evidence, and that spiritual discernment confirms its truth.

Twice false. Quote me.

The Bible record is written as direct authentic evidence, by being recorded eyewitness accounts. Spiritual discernment can accept spiritual things as true.

The only argument made where spiritual discernment confirms it's own truth, is man being spiritually intelligent, apart from all animals on the earth. To argue against it, is irrational, since it takes spiritual intelligence to argue in the first place.

Once again, I've advised you to quote me, so that you don't misrepresent me. If you continue quoting your own misrepresentations, rather than me, then it must be on purpose...

[RBD]

Inconsistency Regarding Other Scriptures

You state that you “do not reject supernatural accounts simply because they are supernatural,” yet you reject non-biblical ones if they “contradict Bible records.”

And unsurprisingly, you leave out any critical review of the evidence first.

This is precisely the circular privileging that critical scholarship seeks to avoid.

Only if there is no critical review of the evidence first.

The natural man's reasoning runs as follows:

1. All things supernatural are foolishness.
2. All evidence of supernatural things are lies.
3. Reviewing evidence of supernatural things is not critical scholarship.

Conclusion: Anyone judging between supernatural records, can only be by personal bias. Since there can't possibly be any critical review of supernatural 'evidence', that is only foolish lies.

The reasoning runs as follows:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. Therefore, anything contradicting the Bible is false.
3. Therefore, the Bible remains inerrant.

The uncritical reasoning runs that way. Which once again shows your rejection of any critical review of supernatural things.

The critical reasoning runs as follows:

1. The Bible is proving itself inerrant.
2. Therefore, anything contradicting the Bible can be errant.
3. So long as the Bible remains proving itself inerrant, then anything contradicting the Bible can remain errant.

This is not evidence-based reasoning but self-validation by prior commitment.

Correct. Since supernatural things are foolishness, then supernatural evidence is foolish lies, and critical review between supernatural records, is therefore not rationally possible.

The Gospels are theological stories. Their narrative function is to inspire faith, not to document forensics.

So says the natural man, that says all things spiritual are foolishness. And any recorded supernatural event, is just foolish lies. And any foolish review of those events, is not critical scholarship of rational evidence...

The natural man thus forbids himself from any rational review of the literary record and evidence. I.e. your personal natural unbelief does not allow for critical scholarship.

When you say “John wrote I, John,” that proves authorship no more than “I, Sherlock Holmes” would prove Sherlock Holmes’ existence in reality, instead of being a fictional character.

Which is proven here. A Book that claims factual authenticity, and written as eyewitness accounts, cannot be compared with a book whose author does not write as an eyewitness himself, nor publishes as being factually true...

Since supernatural events are foolish, then your counterarguments to recorded supernatural events, becomes manifestly foolish.

Ancient authors often wrote pseudonymously to confer authority (a common practice in antiquity: cf. the Testament of Moses or Enoch).

Revising the Bible by pseudo-unbiblical authors, is equally unqualifying.

To treat those signatures as self-authenticating is to apply a standard no historian accepts elsewhere. Imagine a Hindu citing “I, Arjuna, heard Krishna speak” as proof that Krishna is divine

Now trying to compare the Bible statements of eyewitness authority, with other books that never state such eyewitness authority. Having to make up such statements elsewhere, only proves the uniqueness of the Bible's stated authority. You continue to prove the Bible point, by having to make up fictitious counterpoints...

And also, where does A. Doyle ever write, I, Sherlock Holmes...

Standards of Historical Verification

You contest the principle of “multiple independent attestations,” arguing that even one confirming account suffices. But independence is the very key: multiple copies of the same tradition do not count as independent witnesses.

And now, you must claim the gospels are all copies of one another... It continues to prove you have no qualification to factually argue with things, that you pre-conclude are all foolish.

When you say that “Revelation was written during and after the events recorded by John himself,” you assume both authorship and event.

When you say that “Revelation was not written during and after the events recorded by John himself,” you assume both authorship and event are false.

Internal literary coherence aids accepting the stated eyewitness record. Invented revisionism is unqualified to prove anything.

Objective Skepticism vs. Faith Commitment

To say “the Bible is wrong about the sun standing still” is not to say “its authors lied.”

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

So, the Bible has no author. It's just a lying 'Book'.

[RBD]

Where you see divine revelation, I see the natural evolution of belief systems shaped by environment and culture.

Where you see the natural evolution of belief systems shaped by environment and culture, I see pseudo-social philosophy, instead of seeing divine revelation.

1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

The Question of Divine Communication

If the Biblical God is truly omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then divine communication should be perfect in clarity, universality, and accessibility. Yet the medium chosen is a collection of human writings - anonymous, contradictory,

Unqualified revisionism, and unproven accusation.

Omnibenevolent?

3. If God is omnibenevolent, He would desire to remove unnecessary confusion, doubt, and religious conflict.

So, you want God to come and stop you from arguing against Him? And if you refuse?

I thought omnibenevolence would be always doing good or something.

Act 10:38
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Mar 7:37
And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.

And yet, he was still crucified for His omnibenevolence. So much for demands of natural proof.

4. The actual world shows the opposite: many self-contradictory and mutually contradictory religions

It's God's fault, for not coming and Personally stop you from arguing against Him.

Actually, Scripture prophecies that demand being granted:

Rev 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

So, you're calling for the Lord's Millennium. The only problem is, whose side are you on?

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness

Philosopher J. L. Schellenberg formulated this problem clearly: a perfectly loving God would ensure that every sincere seeker has unmistakable awareness of His existence.

Which He promises to those who seek Him by faith, and He does.

The natural man's problem is unbelief in the spiritual God, and looking for a natural God instead. Hence, unnecessary confusion, doubt, and religious conflict.

Jde 1:10
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

If belief or disbelief carries eternal consequences, a just deity would remove ambiguity.

And here we always have the origin and sum of the matter: It's not the spiritual things, nor supernatural events, that are the problem, but the eternal law of commandments and judgement by works:

Rev 20:11
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works… And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Conclusion
The reliance on fallible human texts instead of universal divine revelation undermines the claim of divine perfection.

Agreed. Which is why I don't argue fallible human texts for Scripture of God.

[Zzyzx]

Regardless of ancient mythology, does anyone actually believe that the Earth stopped rotating ("sun stood still overhead for a day")?