"It does n't matter if it 's 'earth shattering ' or not . By admitting that we hold different standards for the Bible proves my entire point : hypocrisy on the part of skeptics . More proof to prove my point , thanks ! It does not matter what the document contains ! The same procedure should be done for every document . What the writing says is irrelevant to its authenticity ! You wrongly use Occam 's Razor as well . If the document is well preserved , has many copies , has copies relatively close to the original , etc , then the most likely assumption we can make is that the document itself is a valid source . Then and only then , should we examine the contents within and determine if they happened . We can do this through archaeological evidences and from other writings as well that agree with that one . Much of which we in fact do not have for many of Caesar 's expeditions , but yet again , we accept them as fact in our history books . But , it is funny that you should mention Caesar splitting a river . While he did n't do that , he did claim to have created a massive bridge in a very short time period and then destroyed it a few days later . Sounds like a pretty audacious claim from guys without any modern equipment . Should we discount this too because it 'does n't seem practical ' as we do with the bible despite the overwhelming documentation for it ? But here you are admitting that you set different standards 'depending on what the writing claims ' . Thanks again for proving my point I guess ."
"Ah , if you 'd just waited fifteen minutes , you would n't have posted this scathing accusation of unfairness before I explained precisely why your accusation is nothing but fabrication . Oh well , maybe you 'll eat your humble pie without making a fuss ... but I wo n't hold my breath ."
"By admitting that we hold different standards for the Bible proves my entire point"
"you would n't have posted this scathing accusation of unfairness before I explained"