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 #70]

In that case, why we can't add life back to a dead body?

Because "life" is not a detachable substance that can be added or removed - it is the ongoing process of metabolism, self-repair, and homeostasis within organized biochemistry. Once critical systems degrade beyond reversal (e.g. irreversible brain death, denatured proteins, destroyed cellular membranes), the feedback loops that sustain life cease. That is not “life leaving,” but life-ending - just as a collapsed building no longer has the structure to stand, even if the bricks remain. Besides, we can resuscitate people whose hearts have stopped beating, using science. This is a kind of resurrection of the dead. There are biologically immortal species e.g. Immortal Jellyfish, Planarian Flatworms, Freshwater Cnidarian Polyps, etc. It's possible that with further advancement of science we would be able to make humans and other living things immortal. Current medical science would seem miraculous to people who lived 2,000 years ago. They didn't even know that germs cause diseases. They believed demons caused diseases due to their ignorance.

Yes, that is why I say people don't give life. The life is in their cells and people only let them live and continue.

I agree that parents don’t “create” life ex nihilo - but that also applies to any hypothetical creator. Every living system derives from prior causes within nature. The reproductive process simply continues existing biochemistry; it doesn’t generate a new metaphysical entity called “life.” There is no evidence of a supernatural “soul” that humans or Gods insert.

Many things are such that if they truly happened, we could not find anything, except maybe the stories.

That reasoning nullifies historical method. History depends on the possibility of falsification. If a claim is structured so that no conceivable evidence could confirm or disconfirm it, it’s not historical reasoning - it’s a faith assertion. When evidence should exist but doesn’t (e.g., a global flood), that absence is evidentially relevant. Extraordinary claims demand proportionally strong corroboration, not insulation from testing.

Most people that live today, likely will never be found after 2000 years.

True - but history doesn’t rely on every life leaving a trace. It relies on correlation between independent lines of evidence. We know Julius Caesar existed not because we have his bones, but because coins, inscriptions, and writings by multiple authors converge. The same cannot be said for the Biblical miracles, which rest entirely on later Biblical testimony with no external corroboration.

But it is not speaking about creation.

Genesis 2 explicitly describes Yahweh forming man from dust, planting a garden, making animals, and forming woman. Those are creative acts, not mere descriptions. The narrative order (man → vegetation → animals → woman) differs from Genesis 1 (plants → animals → humans). That is why biblical scholars - including most Christian ones - treat them as distinct traditions woven together.

Sorry, I think people are too evil and stupid to imagine Bible God.

Please prove your claim instead of just claiming it. You simultaneously affirm that people can imagine Satan, demons, false Gods, and mythologies - yet deny they could have imagined one more deity among them. Humans have imagined countless gods, often reflecting the cultures that conceived them. The God of the Bible is no exception: an Iron Age Near Eastern deity whose moral code mirrors its tribal society.

I mean that for example you don't seem to want to hear the truth that Genesis 2 is not a different creation story...

I’ve read the Hebrew text. The literary markers (different divine name, order, and vocabulary) make it a separate source - the so-called Yahwist account. Recognizing that is not “not wanting the truth”; it’s accepting what the text shows linguistically and historically.

In that case textual criticism seems to be wrong.

Textual criticism is an academic discipline using manuscript comparison, carbon dating, and linguistic analysis. Dismissing it wholesale because it conflicts with your belief is circular. Variants such as Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 are absent from the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.). They were added centuries later - that’s not opinion; that’s empirical textual fact.

You gave these two scriptures. I don't see any problem in them, so please explain how these are different doctrically?

Because they alter theology and practice.

Mark 16:9–20 introduces snake handling, immunity to poison, and universal condemnation for unbelief. None of these appear elsewhere in the Gospels or earliest manuscripts. Entire Pentecostal movements have based dangerous doctrines on those verses.
John 7:53–8:11 adds a compassionate narrative of Jesus pardoning adultery - a beloved story, but again absent from all early manuscripts and foreign to John’s style and vocabulary. Its moral tone shifts the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus’ judgment.

Both passages were later interpolations - beautiful or dramatic, yes, but not original. A just God would not need scribes to forge his words.

Historical truth rests on verifiable evidence, not on faith protecting itself from scrutiny. If a belief system’s foundation collapses under critical analysis, it needs re-examination, not defense through special pleading.

[1213]

...Current medical science would seem miraculous to people who lived 2,000 years ago. They didn't even know that germs cause diseases. They believed demons caused diseases due to their ignorance.

Actually, it is still possible demons cause diseases by germs. For example Covid seems to be made by humans and released by humans intentionally to cause death and to give politicians more power.

It is interesting that the word pharmacy apparently comes from the word pharmakeus, which is translated sorcerer. So, the people who lived 2,000 years ago, would probably see current medical science as sorcery. By what I see, it would be quite close to the truth.

But for the cowardly and unbelieving, and those having become foul, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers [=pharmakeus], and idolaters, and all the lying ones, their part will be in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Rev. 21:8

When evidence should exist but doesn’t (e.g., a global flood), that absence is evidentially relevant.

We can find all evidence of the great flood that there should be (oil, coal, gas fields, orogenic mountains, vast sediment formations, remains of the "fountains of the great deep", marine fossils on high mountain areas...).

...We know Julius Caesar existed not because we have his bones, but because coins, inscriptions, and writings by multiple authors converge. The same cannot be said for the Biblical miracles...

But, if writings from multiple authors is not sufficient for Jesus, why would it be sufficient for JC?

Genesis 2 explicitly describes Yahweh forming man from dust, planting a garden, making animals, and forming woman. Those are creative acts, not mere descriptions. The narrative order (man → vegetation → animals → woman) differs from Genesis 1 (plants → animals → humans). That is why biblical scholars - including most Christian ones - treat them as distinct traditions woven together.

So, if I plant a garden, I have created the plants? I think that is silly idea. And it is disappointing, if biblical scholars can't see the difference.

You simultaneously affirm that people can imagine Satan, demons, false Gods, and mythologies - yet deny they could have imagined one more deity among them. Humans have imagined countless gods...

Actually I don't claim people have imagined them. I think those are based on real experiences and the other gods existed. The difference is, I don't think those other "gods" should have been kept as the God. For example a golden calf, I believe it existed, should not have been kept as a god.

Variants such as Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 are absent from the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.). They were added centuries later - that’s not opinion; that’s empirical textual fact.

How would you prove they would not have been in the original source?

Mark 16:9–20 introduces snake handling, immunity to poison, and universal condemnation for unbelief. None of these appear elsewhere in the Gospels or earliest manuscripts. Entire Pentecostal movements have based dangerous doctrines on those verses.

I think it is wrongly understood, if one thinks the condemnation is because of unbelief. Condemnation is because of sin. And the judgment remains if one doesn't believe what Jesus said. Mark 16:9–20 is in my opinion in line with the rest of the Bible.

John 7:53–8:11 adds a compassionate narrative of Jesus pardoning adultery - a beloved story, but again absent from all early manuscripts and foreign to John’s style and vocabulary. Its moral tone shifts the Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus’ judgment.

The whole mission of Jesus was to come to offer forgiveness, that is why I think it is silly to think John 7:53–8:11 is some how a foreign idea.

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the bro-kenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to pro-claim the acceptable year of the Lord."… …"I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also. For this reason I have been sent."
Luke 4:18-19, 43
For God didn't send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him. He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:17-21

Both passages were later interpolations - beautiful or dramatic, yes, but not original.

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #65]

A. Type of evidence needed

Grounded reasoning requires that its premises remain within the evidential reach of the domain under discussion. The moment we cross from “what happened” (historical) to “what caused it supernaturally” (metaphysical), we enter a domain without empirical access or falsifiability.
Even if one builds an orderly chain of steps, the bridge between a local historical claim and an infinite metaphysical conclusion remains untestable. At best, such reasoning is speculative coherence, not evidence.

Yes, we move away from empirical access into metaphysics. If that is a problem, then you must reject the very empirical access you are praising because it all depends on philosophically grounded reasoning. You are standing on a chair and then taking the legs out from under it.

That objection presupposes that knowledge nullifies freedom. But humans routinely disbelieve well-established truths - climate science, evolution, vaccines - despite overwhelming clarity. Knowledge does not coerce; it merely informs. Most people are non-vegan, even though veganism is better for the animals, the environment and humans. Knowledge is frequently ignored or twisted by humans for their own agenda.
If God’s goal were “soul-making,” He could ensure epistemic openness without resorting to cosmic ambiguity. A world of manifest divine presence need not remove moral freedom any more than scientific evidence removes ethical freedom.

Yes, humans disbelieve many things the evidence says they shouldn’t because of a lack of perfect clarity. We can get pretty certain about things, but not fully certain, not perfect clarity. “Knowledge” doesn’t coerce, but perfect knowledge would. A lack of perfect clarity in the texts is not a rational problem for one here.

Logical necessity is not demanded for empirical claims - it is demanded when a claim asserts universal metaphysical truth.

Why?

That’s fair. But once those historical-critical criteria are applied consistently, the resurrection narratives rank at the lowest level of reliability. They are multiply redacted, theologically charged, and lack external corroboration.
If we apply the same standards used for non-Christian ancient reports, we would classify them as legendary accretions, not historical certainties.

I disagree, so I think we should look at each fact and hear each other out.

Methodological naturalism is not bias; it is the foundation of disciplined inquiry.
Without it, we lose any criterion for distinguishing miracles from myth, coincidence, or error. “Possible” is not the same as “plausible.” Until a miracle demonstrates repeatable, verifiable causal power distinguishable from natural processes, agnosticism is rational - but it justifies no positive belief in the event’s supernatural cause.

If we suspend methodological naturalism, every mythology gains equal evidential standing - Greek, Norse, Hindu, and Christian alike - collapsing explanatory hierarchy into relativism.

When one philosophical worldview among other alternatives is assumed true when investigating whatever field is being investigated (history, science, etc.) it absolutely is an undisciplined and biased inquiry. That would be like me saying that we ought to assume dualism when studying all of science.

With methodological naturalism we don’t use any criteria to distinguish miracles from myth, we simply assume miracles are myth, coincidence, or error. Assumptions are very dangerous. Every worldview should be on equal ground before looking at the evidence. Evidence separates truth from falsehood, not predetermined bias.


Step 1: Historical Facts

1. Jesus historically existed

Historical agnosticism is not about demanding 100% certainty; it is about acknowledging proportional confidence.

Good.

Yes, most scholars accept a historical Jesus in some form - but that consensus reflects sociological momentum, not definitive evidence.

Show that scholars accept this by mere sociological momentum, don’t just claim it.

The Pauline letters, our earliest sources, show belief in a revealed Christ, not detailed acquaintance with a historical biography.

Paul wasn’t writing a biography. Still, he speaks of Jesus being born as a human, a descendant of David, having family, having disciples, citing various of Jesus’ teachings, performing the Last Supper, being crucified, buried, and resurrected bodily. That’s more than enough for this fact #1 we are talking about.

A teacher may have existed; the divine incarnation claim remains unsubstantiated. Thus, the prudent position is neither denial nor belief, but suspension of judgment pending adequate evidence - epistemic humility.

We aren’t talking about divine incarnation as a fact here, but that Jesus historically existed.

Independence must be demonstrated, not assumed. “Mark,” “Q,” and the Synoptic expansions share oral and literary dependence, forming a single tradition cluster rather than distinct eyewitness streams. “John” exhibits later theological development, not historical corroboration.

Paul’s references are theological and visionary - he never claims to have seen Jesus in life. His “knowledge” derives from alleged revelation and second-hand reports.

As for Tacitus and Josephus, both rely on information circulating among Christians decades later. No Roman or Jewish contemporary provides primary observation of the events. The Talmudic materials are centuries later and polemical.

Therefore, the total evidential base reduces to intra-Christian testimony - a single ideological echo chamber.

No, they don’t count as one source simply because they saw each other’s work and some people used some elements of some of them. And John isn’t discounted because he added some theological elements. Paul’s source of Jesus' pre-resurrection existence isn’t himself, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an independent source from Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. He’s a historical witness to those who spoke of Jesus’ existence in places and with people at a short time from the crucifixion who would have easily pointed out Jesus didn’t exist, if that was the case. Tacitus and Josephus would not just rely on hearsay from a fringe group to relay their historical accounts.

That assumes embarrassment cannot be theologically reframed. In fact, reversal of shame is the dominant motif of Christian theology: weakness becomes strength, death becomes victory, the last become first.
A baptized, crucified Messiah is not a reluctant concession but a deliberate theological construct designed to glorify God's victory through resurrection.

Hence, what appears “embarrassing” from an outsider’s lens is strategic from within the movement’s narrative of redemptive inversion. The criterion, therefore, loses discriminatory power in this context.

Your view here is truly unfalsifiable because whatever happened you’d create a narrative that explains why it would be fabrication. You are being completely ad hoc. If you are making something up within this Jewish timeframe you are not going to have a crucified Messiah that was baptized by another movement’s rabbi.

I see absolutely no good reason to think Jesus didn’t historically exist, which is all we are talking about so far. If you remain convinced that it is more rational to think Jesus didn’t exist as a person, there’s no need for you to go further.

Possibly still to come…

2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece.

Step 2: Explanation of the facts
Step 3: Implication of the explanation of the facts, especially concerning God's existence.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #73]

I have no problem thinking of Jesus as an historic figure but this in itself doesn't mean the actual figure is being represented as a factual representation of said figure.

It is still within the realm of possibility that the story we get biblically is a fiction.

But even if we could prove it is a matter of fact as presented in the bible, we are left with other possibilities which can explain those facts in scientific terms, even that a lack of evidence makes those terms seem more like science "fiction".

[The Tanager]

I have no problem thinking of Jesus as an historic figure but this in itself doesn't mean the actual figure is being represented as a factual representation of said figure.

It is still within the realm of possibility that the story we get biblically is a fiction.

But even if we could prove it is a matter of fact as presented in the bible, we are left with other possibilities which can explain those facts in scientific terms, even that a lack of evidence makes those terms seem more like science "fiction".

Yes, it comes down to what best explains the facts. If you want to have that discussion, I'll do it step by step. Are you agreed with the preliminary stuff about historical studies, independent sources, etc. and that Jesus historically existed without committing yourself to everything written about him in those sources? If so, we can move on to fact 2, unless you want to share which facts I laid out in bold you already accept.

[William]

I have no problem thinking of Jesus as an historic figure but this in itself doesn't mean the actual figure is being represented as a factual representation of said figure.

It is still within the realm of possibility that the story we get biblically is a fiction.

But even if we could prove it is a matter of fact as presented in the bible, we are left with other possibilities which can explain those facts in scientific terms, even that a lack of evidence makes those terms seem more like science "fiction".

Yes, it comes down to what best explains the facts. If you want to have that discussion, I'll do it step by step. Are you agreed with the preliminary stuff about historical studies, independent sources, etc. and that Jesus historically existed without committing yourself to everything written about him in those sources? If so, we can move on to fact 2, unless you want to share which facts I laid out in bold you already accept.

Yes I am fine with what you wrote in bold...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #76]

So, to make sure we are on the same page, you are saying you agree with these statements as facts:

1. Jesus historically existed
2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece

Or are you referring to some other bolded part?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #76]

So, to make sure we are on the same page, you are saying you agree with these statements as facts:

1. Jesus historically existed
2. Jesus was buried in a tomb
3. Jesus' tomb was later found empty
4. People claimed to experience post-mortem appearances
5. The Christian movement originally focused on the resurrection as its centerpiece

I am considering them as possibly true (thus facts) for the "sake of discussion" In that, I accept that as far as the stories goes, it is factual that the stories tells us these things.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #78]

I want to make sure I'm accurately understanding you. It sounds to me like you are saying, let's assume I'm right about the facts in step 1, you think there would still be a better explanation of those facts in step 2 than that an actual resurrection happened. Is that accurate?

[William]

I am considering them as possibly true (thus facts) for the "sake of discussion" In that, I accept that as far as the stories goes, it is factual that the stories tells us these things.

[Replying to William in post #78]

I want to make sure I'm accurately understanding you. It sounds to me like you are saying, let's assume I'm right about the facts in step 1, you think there would still be a better explanation of those facts in step 2 than that an actual resurrection happened. Is that accurate?

No. I am considering them as possibly true (thus facts) for the sake of discussion. In that, I accept that as far as the stories goes, it is factual that the stories tells us these things as if they were facts. This means that because the resurrection story is also included, I am treating that as if it actually happened, for the sake of this discussion, rather than I simply agree with these statements as being facts.

As far as "better" explanations for these stories go - since there hasn't yet been offered explanations for them (but hopefully you will provide yours) it is more a matter of my providing an alternate explanation for what you wrote as "it comes down to what best explains the facts."

That is why I wrote "But even if we could prove it is a matter of fact as presented in the bible, we are left with other possibilities which can explain those facts in scientific terms, even that a lack of evidence makes those terms seem more like science "fiction"."

If you or I could prove the stories as presented in the bible are a matter of fact, we might approach this differently, so what I am saying is that for the sake of discussion I will go along with believing they are a matter of fact and then present what I think could explain how these things might have come to be a matter of fact.

In short then, I am approaching these not knowing they are a matter of fact but believing that they are, and saying why I have said belief.

Thus - for the sake of this discussion - I believe as a matter of fact that a resurrection happened, but I do not KNOW as a matter of fact that a resurrection happened.

Does that help clarify for you how I am approaching this?