Faith,
YOu give no evidence here that it ever means anything but false or not based on reality, you simply assert it.
No, I paraphrased the English Oxford Dictionary. Now I’ll quote it.
Myth: noun 1 a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, & typically involving supernatural beings or events.
The parting of the Red Sea is a myth in the context I wrote it.
No, it was the event of the Red Sea parting that was in question, and the written testimony to it is witness evidence of it. You are right I should not have used the term "corroborating" however, as the ONLY evidence is witness evidence.
Nor should you have used the words independent, or evidence. This is a theme I shall reiterate again in this post. In order to accept eyewitness testimony as being evidential, we must show we have a witness in the first place. In other words, where is the independent evidence that the witnesses are real people? I almost can’t believe I am having to force this point; that we must establish people are real in order to accept testimony from them.
Darth Vader exists because Luke Skywalker says so. Riiiiiiight.
If I know something happened & there is no evidence, then there is no reason that anyone need accept my words as fact.
Of course not, though normally you will be taken at your word on minor points of information unless you've proved yourself to be untrustworthy, and if it's very important information you are giving someone, they are going to have to figure out just how trustworthy you are and if others find you trustworthy and all that. That's how we judge witness evidence.
I have to prove myself untrustworthy for you not to accept my testimony. You therefore accept hook, line & sinker that I had martians for breakfast on Wednesday morning?
Not that often, though we may certainly make allowances for a human tendency to embellish. But that is why the Bible is hedged about with so many extra securities, so MANY witnesses, so many witnesses TO the witnesses
This is like saying that John Edwards testimony that Jack Smith murdered Sheila Boyle is acceptable if there is other evidence in support of it, but not if the other evidence contradicts it! If it is evidence, then it stands alone.
Lastly, since the parting of the Red Sea is only found in the OT, what allowances are you making for embellishment?
and I said to you earlier that you yourself experience this every day. Give physical evidence for what you had for breakfast on Wednesday.
I had aliens for breakfast. Martians. Delicious. Great with waffles. You have a reason not to accept my eyewitness evidence? You accept I eat Martians?
You offer none of the securities that your word is true in this case that the Bible offers, the securities that even normally attend everyday information. You are simply making a stupid mockery of the idea and refusing to think.
Rubbish, it’s eyewitness testimony in & of itself, or it’s not. I repeat, this is like saying that John Edwards testimony that Jack Smith murdered Sheila Boyle is acceptable if there is other evidence in support of it, but not if the other evidence contradicts it! I am refusing to think? Pah!
What securities? Where is the independent evidence that all those witnesses existed? I require a single security, that the witnesses were not fictional. That the bible says it rained on thursaday & got it right has no bearing on this. The people were fictional or they weren’t. Only independent evidence will potentially let us know either way.
Or could it be that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Millions of witnesses is extraordinary evidence, and the internal consistency of the reports is extraordinary evidence, and the reverence which is character witness at the very least is extraordianry evidence, and the results of the teachings of Christ in extraordinary benefits to the world is extraordinary evidence. If you have no ability to judge such things you are up a creek.
And what millions of people would they be? I expect independent evidence that they existed, & that they were where they say they were at the relevant times, or they cannot be considered witnesses.
Given this is the case I am under no compulsion to accept anything in the bible as evidence of anything except the existence of a religious document. Even if we could get good evidence that, say, Moses existed, it's still a case of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, just like my Martian breakfast scenario (which, I promise you faithfully actually happened). Why is this? Because anyone can make something up.
Can, but some of us have the sense to tell the difference.
Nonsense. How do you tell the difference with no evidence? This is Faithspeak for you believing what you want regardless of evidence.
I had martians for breakfast. I am an eyewitness, this is my testimony, it is therefore eyewitness testimony. There are no other conditions that apply.
In the Mahabharata text, the sage Markandeya spoke to Vishnu, that’s eyewitness evidence that the bible is fundamentally false because Yahweh isn't the one true god, right?
And this is PRESENTED as fact? Or as instructive story? And these characters are placed in a historical context or just in the city of the imagination? Do you ask such questions? Apparently not. You jump to the silliest superficial comparisons and call it proof.
You can’t see the wood for the trees, can you?
It is presented as fact. We are being given information that Vishnu will walk the earth as an Avatar in times of need, it is an important part of Hindu religion.
Markandeya spoke to Vishnu & s/he told him this. We have a text where Markandeya speaks to a God, this meets exactly the same criteria as anything in the bible. If Moses was an eyewitness, so was Markandeya. It is, according to you, eyewitness evidence.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2