The bible is evidence, though not proof. The bible can't rightfully be dismissed as evidence simply because one does not believe its validity.
I am grappling with both the logic
and the concept of spiritual growth in this, although I do agree that the Bible is evidence rather than proof. (At some stage we have to a reasoned judgement on how much of it we will accept on the balance of other sources. We may even have to define evidence as an
interpreted evidence. You will read the Bible in your way; someone else in another. If he outright refuses to examine, test or accept your opinion, then he is not functioning as a rational person.)
You
would have to dismiss evidence if you believe it to be invalid! Surely! I will insert the rider here that evidence can rarely be totally fool-proof. Ultimately, we make a choice about what we accept, if
not what we believe!
Otherwise, why not accept The Apochrypha? Or Darwin's research. Or Dawkins? You doubt them and have dismissed them as invalid, yet eagerly and unquestioningly approve the Bible in its literal sense.
I would suspect it is more cogent to treat with caution evidence that has doubtful validity than to blindly adhere to it in the presence of other sound contrary evidence.
The Bible is evidence, but in your case it seems to heavily rely on
itself to corroborate its veracity. And thus, it shields itself from any scrutiny or forensic examination.
It defines itself as incontrovertible. That almost places one in the position of accepting wholly or rejecting it wholly. A clear case of dangerous absolutism.
Those things concern sceptics as well as many xians.
Much (all?) scientific evidence is also evidential
theory, not fact. This gets forgotten by some on both sides.
science differs in that it remains open to both confirmation and contradiction. In fact, that very process of constant testing and assessing is what makes it more reliable and convincing. It needs to be found wrong in order to remain a true science.
To the dogmatist, the dice is inevitably loaded in The Bible's own favour and so can't be questioned. That nexus needs to be broken so that both sides can play by the same rules.
The problem with your opening sentence above, is that it doesn't gel with your implied ideas or reason. If The Bible
is only evidence, then it should be treated as forensically as other forms of evidence. In your case (for example) I don't believe it is, because when it is challenged, you repeatedly use The Bible as
proof of its own validity and the very basis for rejecting any other contrary evidence. There can be no dialogue.
This concerns me on a number of levels.