@josiah33. All the articles you've cited are of people presenting hypotheses that have neither been proved or disproved. In one instance there's the article citing ONE tablet of an apparent eyewitness account of an asteroid striking Sodom and Gomorrah. Why would one, uncorroborated tablet carry more weight than all the eyewitness accounts incorporated in the Bible? Here's my theory, maybe the "astrologer" was high on some high-quality organic ganja ("...taking a local hallucinogenic substance derived from leaves of the ayahuasca plant found in the Negev and Sinai deserts.") Better still this "astrologer" was an aspiring novelist / freelance journalist trying to shop his story to the low-brow tabloids of the day ;). How's that for a theory that can neither be conclusively proved nor disproved?

I have tried to derive an argument from your statement.

The argument is: Some of the events described in the bible have alternative explanations of causality, therefore the claims made by most believers of these stories/events may be unfounded.

First, the 'scientific' explanations cannot claim to be causal explanations. They are at best, descriptions of matter in motion. The bible talks about the actual causes behind the events.

We can also provide the following counter: The argument could be simplified to read "The events were not reported with exactitude." But then, no report is ever exact since all reports are both subjective and relative.

In this case, the subjectivity and the positioning of the believer are fundamentally different to that of the 'scientific reporter.'

Finally, the Bible has levels of understanding that require a different reading mode. For example, the story of Icarus and Daedelus is true even when positive science shows us the contrary.

When you say causal i presume you mean cause and effect. So what's the cause for the effect from the bibilical point of view? I suppose you are going to say the cause is the hand of God which i don't refute. But why do you assume that the scientist is not explaining cause of certain effect by trying to give an alternative argument to what really caused the events described as miracles in the bible? As far as am concerned the parting of the red sea could be as a result of God's hand or Nature(read the strong east wind) which is even mentioned in that story in the bible. A strong east wind blew at the time of the crossing of the sea.

Also if exactitude of the stories is not guaranteed and the reporting is both subjective and relative to the narrator's position as you say, then all the less plausible the bible stories are. Am sure you know that two different people would interpret the hanging of a piece of bone on their door differently: one will say it's witchcraft and someone's trying to harm him and another would not think much of it or if it worries him, he will only think it's a prank. That's what you would call relative to the narrator.

And about Icarus and Daedelus, is that a bible story too? Hell i don't believe that story.

I cant agree with you more.Never ever doubt the Works of God.Remember you are one of his marvels.

[/quote]
When you say causal i presume you mean cause and effect. So what's the cause for the effect from the bibilical point of view?

And later ....

Also if exactitude of the stories is not guaranteed and the reporting is both subjective and relative to the narrator's position as you say, then all the less plausible the bible stories are.

Then ...

And about Icarus and Daedelus, is that a bible story too? Hell i don't believe that story.

[/quote]

The bibilical view is about a relationship between God and Man, and this relationship is grounded on Psychological causes and effects. The bible is clear that God acts in love, and the whole unfolding of the history of Man is one of being conscious of God's love and consumating it.

When the positive scientist seeks to offer an explanation, he finds himself being restricted to a method that necessarily tries to exclude or minimize the psychological.

But even this positivism has been put to doubt. Consider the thoughts of physists like Schroedinger, and come even to modern cosmology and the 'Anthropic principle.' The gist of the whole movement in thought is that there is no pure observation; the observer is necessarily a creator of the event.

Therefore, if the above assertions are true, then it follows that one can only find the Truth of an assertion in the psychological sphere.

The aim of speech is to include or consider the psychological positions and interpretations of other minds. That is, truth is the result of a conversation. So one cannot say that a statement is true or false just because it doesn't accord to his/her personal experience.

Finally, when you say you don't believe in Icarus' story, what exactly do you mean? If you are talking of the 'literal truth' then know that that is not in dispute as such. But the psychological truth? Well if you believe the aphorism, 'Pride comes before a fall' then you believe in the story.