Once again the peanut gallery rears its head and offers no substantial thought process. As they guilt the religious person for not showing evidence, they as well just spew statements with no proof at all. The Bible teaches that one CANNOT rely on feelings, experiences, and intuition as proof for anything (Pr.14:12). So all the talk about experiences is erroneous and anti-biblical.

The statement that the Bible is credible because it conforms to reality is sound when one ACTUALLY reads and studies the Bible with an open and honest mind. Here are examples:
(1) We know things are produced after their own kind, the Bible validates this (Gen.1:12,21).
(2) We know there exists a greater light, the sun, and the lesser light, the moon, which gives us our source of light, the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:14-18).
(3) We know that man and woman exist and are needed for procreation; the Bible validates this (Gen. 2:22-24).
(4) We know that what separates man from the animal world is intelligence; the Bible confirms this (Gen. 1:26; 2:15-20).
(5) We know that circuits of wind exist and that streams run to the sea; the Bible confirms this (Eccl. 1:6-7).
(6) We know the earth is a sphere; the Bible confirms this (Isa. 40:22).
(7) We know that what leads to evil actions is a distorted mind; the Bible confirms this (Eph. 4:17-19).
(8) We know that anything built must have been built by someone greater than it; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 3:2-4).
(9) We know that evidence is needed to believe in something; the Bible confirms this (Heb. 11:1).

I asked for an additional postulation for how we got here and all I got was an illogical argument - evolution and a single cell. That is not an answer, because it begs the question, who or what is responsible for the single cell? This line of argument can go ad infinitum. I gave as a consideration that a metaphysical Being, whom the Bible describes as mind/thought, is responsible for the world. This Being is the FIRST CAUSE of all things, meaning there is none other beside Him, which interestingly the Bible teaches (Isa. 44:6). This seems more logical and rational than evolution and a single cell. That argument begs more confusion and questions.

What science deals with is what is known, and the problem with atheism using science is making conclusions that since all we have is what is before us, then matter must have always been here. Further, in rejection of God because of bad religion, atheism rejects a Divine Maker of it all. But this is dishonest and illogical. When we arrived on planet Earth, we must ask the right questions and arrive at logical conclusions. We are like homocide detectives, studying and figuring out the clues for our existence. We go from the known to the unknown. Atheism champions evolution, but their explanation of it doesn't conform to logic. At least my response is logical. What this boils down to is, none of us was present at the beginning of time, so know we are left to logically follow the clues to get us from the known to the unknown. This is why I said that God is logical necessity based on the fruits of nature. God cannot be proved with evidence as atheists want, because God is mind and immaterial. All I've mentioned is God is proved by logical necessity.

The point of hermeneutics was spot on and was proved with the foolish remarks from the peanut gallery. In Exodus 33:23 it was said that God through an Angel showed "his butt." Bad hermeneutics! If God had already condemned exposing one's nakedness in Leviticus 18, then why would nakedness be considered there. Further, the phrase "back parts" according to Hebrew scholars is defined as someone's backside, as in back. The point was, God was too majestic and powerful to look at that Moses could not see HIS FACE, but HIS BACK. Once again, the ignorance of the peanut gallery is exposed.

I guess my post wasn't read because I said that there is a process from sender and receiver in communication that must be met. The sender has a message that must be deduced logically by the receiver. I never said that I alone can understand the Bible, rather following the correct process of interpretation anyone can interpret correctly. We do this with other things, such as laws of physics, mathematics, and grammar. We have agreements; likewise the problem is not with what is said in the Bible; only how it is interpreted. Because of misinterpretation, this is the reason why have many false religions and ideologies; which is confirmed in the Scriptures (Deut. 13; Matt. 7:15-20; 2 Pet. 1:20-21).

No one in this forum has proven to think critically and has given me logical arguments to disprove my points. That's a fact!

@ Gabriel

Thank you for the apology. And thanks you for explaining about hermeneutics.

I understand that you wish to debate the "How did we get here? Who or what made us?" questions, but as far as I'm concerned I have no problem answering honestly that "I don't know". I believe the Big Bang Theory and Abiogenesis are the most likely answers, simply because they are supported by evidence. But what caused the Big Bang (if anything) I don't know and even more to the point, I don't feel a need to know.
And of course, I think that just because something is unknown there is no need to insert anything supernatural. Sorry, but that's pretty much my view on that debate.

However, the rest of your answer is a bit of a disappointment. The ending note says it all:

"The Bible holds credibility because it validates reality. The Bible is a logical and rational book. Ask more questions to see whether it does or not."

It's quite clear that you want a Bible interpretation debate, but since I don't think it's a source that holds any credibility, there is no debate for me there.

You are trying to use the Bible (according to your interpretation) to show that the Bible is trustworthy. It's just as bad as straight out saying that "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". There is no better example of circular reasoning than this.

You keep misusing the terms "confirm" and "validate":
When you say that reality confirms the Bible, what you are actually saying is: Reality does not disprove my interpretation of the Bible.
When you say that the Bible validates reality, what you are actually saying is: "The Bible does not disprove reality".

There is a *major* difference between your use of the words, and the normal meaning of the words.

"All of the passages I've used have proved the claim that God doesn't speak to man today as religious people claim today."

Another misused term: "proof". The nature of the evidence is far from sufficient: A text in a book that has no corroboration and highly questionable origins.

"For atheists, the Bible has become just another collection of holy texts, because they have judged the book by the life of feign religious seekers"

No, I don't reject the Bible because of other peoples interpretations. I mostly reject it on the simple fact that it holds no credibility.

I was in a debate with a Muslim in this forum a while back (Valiya a.k.a valiya s sajjad), who claims to have chosen Islam out of several different religions, a quote:
"As I said, I will have to explain to you how the interpretive science works in Islam, for you to be able to appreciate it. But that’s another topic. To give you a peek into it… it’s more or less like how I sifted out one faith from all the other faiths. There is a reasoned and methodical approach to it… that’s intellectually satisfying. It’s not arbitrary at all."

Claiming "special interpretation" is nothing new. Just as Valiya did, you claim that your holy text must be interpreted in the correct way. But this missing the whole point!

The interpretation *is of no consequence* if the Bible, just like the Quran, have no credibility what so ever to begin with. All these religious texts make supernatural claims, contains no special knowledge that wasn't available at that time, lacks corroboration from other sources, etc, etc.

I have no more reason to trust in the credibility of the Bible, than I have to trust in the credibility of the "Venusian Script", which also "validates" and "confirms" reality much in the same way as you claim. At least according to the translation by Omnec Onec, who is the only one who can translate it:
http://omnec-onec.com/venusian-script/

I'm not trying to be insulting or provoking with this example, I'm just trying to illustrate how ineffective I view the Bible as "proof".

So for me, it's back to the only real question:

- What convinces you, apart from the claims in the Bible, that it is a genuine source of information about a god?
or
- Can you say anything to me, that can convince me to believe that the Bible holds credibility about it's supernatural claims?

@ Gabriel......

I wonder.....perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify a biblical point for me....please......

Matthew 27:3-10 ....

References Judas's "thirty pieces of silver" this passage maintains that the prophecy of 'Jeremiah' had been fulfilled –

and yet this particular "prophecy" does not originate in "Jeremiah" .....

in reality it comes from 'Zechariah' (11.12-13) who uses the actual phrase "thirty pieces of silver"!

I wonder what your "take" is on this apparent contradiction....?