Why is Faith a Virtue?

This is the first I've heard of self-verification. I think you are just introducing another word for circular argument. Yet given all the contradictions in the Bible I don't see why you are claiming it's self-verifying,when it's not even consistent! I don't know what you mean by patently either, do you mean established by tradition?I'm not sure what you mean by the honesty of the witnesses either. I don't think they were generally dishonest men but they weren't attempting to be historians in the contemporary sense of the word. They were working out explanations, morals, and just good stories but they often had very partisan agendas such as upholding Judah over Israel. The Bible is largely the compilation of the scribes of the southern kingdom and they subtly and not so subtly give their support to the kings and traditions of Judah.Marc Zvi Brettler writes in How to read the Bible pub. Jewish Publication Society, 2005, pp 107 You may prefer the teachings, concepts, language, etc. of the books compiled into the Bible and there is no disputing taste but it is false to claim the Bible is superior to some other ancient book on the grounds that it is a modern consistent history. It's full of made up stuff, myths, contradictions as texts from differing sources were combined into the final scrolls plus the errors introduced by scribes.And regarding Deuteronomy someone was dishonest. I don't know who all was in on the rewrite of religious practises that established the Jeruasalem Temple as the sole legitimate venue for ritual sacrifice but the practise was introduce late by finding a scroll that contraditicted what everyone believed up until that time. It was a clever and I suspect dishonest attempt to monoplolize power by the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple.It's a case of people living in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.lfen

The MAJOR reason?! Disbelief in the supernatural? Shame on us, we didn't believe in fairies and so we killed Tinkerbell by our disbelief! I'm so ashamed of myself. Next time I'll believe in fairies, unicorns, and Noahs flood. No more science, facts, and evidence for me, then maybe Tinkerbell will come back to life!The major reason has to do with evidence and the failure of evidence. Belief in the supernatural means belief in fairy stories and the imaginings of the ancients. None of those things are evidence. But you won't look at the evidence and studies because your religion forbids critical examination because well, that would be the end of it. Where would Mormonism be if Mormon's studied all the evidence about Joseph Smith, or Islam be if Mohammed was critically examined? It's exactly the same with your religion.lfen

Now that's the virtue of faith. You can do some cool shit.
Imagine that you have faith the size of a mango seed.

The supernatural elements science couldn't possibly disprove. The Flood wasn't supernatural. It can't be disproved because everything about the past can only be speculative. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The flood has been thoroughly disproved.

Thanks for including Biblical accounts of history as part of the all inclusive term "everything."

The context was SCIENCE. The Bible is history. When you have witness reports you have real evidence of the past.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

According to such reasoning all personal testimony trumps forensic evidence in jury trials, no one ever lies, misinterprets, fails to remember accurately, etc.Thankfully, the judicial system in a democracy is supposed to depend upon both physical evidence and testimony rather than just faith in one's infallible preconceptions.

Sorry, thousands of years renders forensics useless, and the witness testimony in question is multiple, 66 books and many others within its pages, all mutually confirming and enhancing and supremely credible. There is NO empirical evidence from the distant past that is anything but speculative. In that case even ONE witness is priceless, but we have hundreds at least.You may choose to disbelieve it. As I said it's a judgment call. But empirical evidence is nonexistent.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The earth and all the things on it and buried in it don't exist? Interesting refutation. You are seeking refuge in soliphism which does give you irrefutability if that is what you want. You are aware of the price you pay for adopting solipism?As too hundreds of witnesses the other traditions have their witnesses also and currently we can call on thousands of scientists in any and each of the disciplines. Somehow I don't think you took a vote to decide on the religion you would believe though. Well they are sometimes confirming and sometimes contradicting. Who killed Goliath? Was it David or Elhanan? What is the proper way to prepare the paschal lamb? By broiling or boiling? And the writers of the scrolls collected in the Bible would even change what God said as times changed. Even utterances attributed to God are subject to revision, that must be the enhancing part.Supremely credible? Only to the credulous.lfen

The earth and everything in it exist just fine, it's the explanations of what supposedly happened that are uselessly speculative.As for the Bible, as I said, it's a judgment call. I'll take mine.

No, you have witness reports. Real evidence would be physical evidence or something like photographs or casts or such.Witness reports come with lots of variables that need to be accounted for. In the case of many of the books in the Bible what you have are traditions handed down that are being written up. The witnesses are not neccesarily who they claim to be. The book of Isiah represents the work of three and possible more scribes.The Bible contains some history much of it distorted and inaccurate.lfen

Did you mean that factually or tentitively?

He meant it dogmatically.

Judgment call whether Bible is distorted etc. I read it as honest and pure and straight as an arrow. Its witnesses are above reproach.There is no empirical evidence of the sort you desire for the condition of the earth a few thousand years ago, but there is tons of honest pure straight witness testimony.My judgment says the Bible is trustworthy. So I have the Bible and you have what you think is empirical evidence. May the best judgment win.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.