Why is Faith a Virtue?

The age of these documents is not of particular importance, but I knew when you said the Mahabharata was older than the Bible that couldn't be so, but I let it go. Then I looked it up, and found that its oldest portions are dated to the 5th century BC. I suppose you would follow a modern revisionist dating of the Bible, but believers all the way back know Moses wrote and oversaw the writing of the first five books, and that puts its oldest portions back to 1400 BC; and the last books of the Old Testament around 400 BC.Perhaps I should also be suspicious of the dating of the Mahabharata. Maybe it's actually older than they say it is too. But I know a major reason for dating the Bible more recently is disbelief in the supernatural by the scholars who do the dating, which rather begs the question to put it mildly, and probably the Mahabharata doesn't suffer from such problems.Mahabharata - Wikipedia

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Discarding the claim of a culture surviving the flood (they descended from Noah just like all the rest of us, and developed their culture after the flood), who's discarding their testimony? I'm sure they have many true things to say, and I have no reason to doubt their witness testimony to anything either, at least not a priori, if they have documents of that sort.All I'm saying is that the Bible witnesses are completely trustworthy and what they witness about is a zillion times more important than what anybody else on the earth ever witnessed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thanks Iano. We're supposed to be learning that ad homs and other misrepresentations and insults are for rejoicing, but it's hard to do. They don't know what they're doing, that's the best that can be said. They just chase us around the board with their nasty accusations. Oh well. Rejoice and be glad.

I never said fallenness meant that everybody lies all the time, and the Biblical witnesses were trained in the fear of God. Not perfect, of course not, but that's why there are MULTIPLE witnesses, as per God's Law, not just one like Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

I've said it's a judgment call. I read it and their honesty is patent to me, clear as a bell, shining. And if that weren't enough there are many of them supporting the same story. That should be evidence of its truth. There is no external evidence, as has been said over and over. What you see is what you get. Who they are is irrelevant. If you don't believe it, that's your judgment call.

What is it in "self-verifying" that escapes you? I base my judgment on my excellent nose for honesty, sincerity and authenticity. As I said, it's a judgment call. If you don't believe it, don't. I am indeed saying that. Absolutely. 66 books by different authors that support each other and further one story as they do is wonderful self-authentication. No, that's just your crabbed spin on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't a single book. It's 66 separate books by many different authors written over 1500 years. And I couldn't care less if all the historians in the world are wrong. I recognize the truthfulness of these writers. Sorry, I'll never meet your standards. Hopeless I guess.

If eyewitness accounts were completely untrustworthy you couldn't trust people around you enough to navigate the world.

Obviously, it isn't. We're all idiots and fools. Take it or leave it.