Why do you think the Bible is factual?

I didn't intend to suggest you either made the statement or believe it was so. Clearly Debra Law made the statement, so, of course, we both realize it.

Yup....and yup!

Personally I have seen it all work just like it says.

Slightly on topic
Reza Aslan on why 'fundamentalism' (the belief in the bible as a literal fact) is a new innovation - and not one held by those who put it together in the first place.

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/17/reza_aslan_destroys_biblical_literalism_the_gospels_are_absolutely_replete_with_historical_errors_and_with_contradictions/
At the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Aslan discussed the relatively new phenomenon of biblical literalism

Professor Reza Aslan, who holds a master’s in theological studies and a Ph.D. in sociology focusing on religion, has bad news for biblical literalists: The Gospels are “replete with historical errors and with contradictions,” and for over a thousand years, religious leaders did not take the Bible as literal fact.

Aslan explained this to attendees of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in February; video of the event just became available in recent weeks. The professor was responding to a question about historians and whether the miracles performed by Jesus actually happened.

“Well, see, again, that is a question that a historian is not allowed to answer,” Aslan stated. “That is a question of faith.”

Aslan went on to explain that for those who believe in God, faith might lead them to believe that Jesus lives in a time where “magic and miracle” were a part of everyday life. For those who don’t believe in a higher power, they might believe that this was a result of “mass psychosis.” He did, however, have advice on how to read the biblical texts.

“I think the best skill that we can learn is how to read the Gospels,” Aslan said. “We come from a world in the 21st century in which we assume that biblical literalism, the notion that the Bible is literal and inerrant, is just sort of an inherent part of belief in the Bible.”

Aslan explains that biblical literalism is actually a relatively modern phenomenon.

“Let me just say that one more time,” Aslan continued. “In the 2,000 year history in which the Gospels have existed, the idea that what you are reading in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is literal and inerrant is a little more than 100 years old. It was the result of a very interesting movement, a backlash to Christian liberalism and the Scientific Revolution at the end of the 19th century … by a group of American Protestants who began a movement that was launched by a series of tracts that were written called ‘The Fundamentals’ and that is where we get the term ‘fundamentalism’ from. It’s a very new phenomenon.”

Along with biblical literalism being a new phenomenon, Aslan also points out that the Gospels are full of errors, and some of them don’t even match up in terms of date. More shockingly, he states that religious men in the church didn’t really have a problem with these historical inaccuracies.

Yes.There is so much in the holy scriptures to deem it a reliable source of truth.

Like it tells us there was a Rome...and an Egypt...right?

The evidence is greatly in its favor.

The translations are not inspired, where did you get that stupid notion?

What language barrier ? The question is not whether language is perfect but whether it is ADEQUATE. STop and think.

Rewriting is your problem. The Church takes the text it takes as the Bible. You are the one asking further that it be a de novo document. Really dumb.

Who compiled it ? What does that mean. Are you now arguing that there must be a Church? How odd of you.

Finally, your last sentence is not what you were arguing. The Psalms the Parables, the Song of Songs, and many other parts CAN"T BE LITERAL AND NEVER TRIED TO BE.

The evidence depends on what is being said. Mistranslation known to be mistranslation must mean we know that it is wrong, so that is a dumb comment. The language barrier? But this doesn't apply to you, right.
The rewrites? The Church only canonized what it canonized with absolutely no statements pro or con about what states preceded that. Dumb comment.

And the compilation is irrelevant. The Church says it was compiled, so what.

After all that you want me to say it is a literal book of fact !!! The majority of the Bible isn't even propositional. I am trying to bite my tongue but you are really __________

You have been answered before but you just re-post.

I even read it in the original languages and I can tell you have no idea of your subject. Much of the Bible is not even propositional in form so the word 'factual' is not applicable. Lke the Parables of Jesus. A parable is on purpose not factual, so that it can teach a general lesson.

I studied the Bible, reading it many times, learing original languages. But it was beccoming a Catholic that really resolved that question for me.

All your whining starts with PRIVATE interpretation and Sola Scriptura. These have always been rejected by Catholicism and I SEE why

asked- "Why do you think the Bible is factual?"
-----------------------------------------------------------

It's a chronicle of literally hundreds of accounts of human interaction with offworld beings spanning many centuries, why would they lie?

But you start with Sola Scriptura and NOBODY had that view for 2000 years. IT's all on you, buddy. The Church gave us the Bible and they had the Faith before you had the Bible.

Just read about the 10 last popes, and u'll see they'r dead on. Pope Francis has his name of a saint whose father was named Petrus and was from Rome, thus the last part of the prophecy are forfilled, he's very diligent about feeding the poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

Counting the eunuchs, I call it as good as it can possibly get.

Torah is neither a history book nor a science book. It's purpose is to teach us to be righteousness.

How does not eating pigs or shell fish make you righteous?

It is clear the Torah was written with it's conclusions built upon ignorance of contaminants in certain foods, or blood, germs, diseases. We now are well aware of these things, so why should a person be punished for eating pigs or shellfish? It's silly to think that any of the Abrahamic religions attempt to proclaim following it makes you righteous.

People take comfort in tradition. If they are not hurting anyone or trying to force you to abide by their traditions, why do you give a damn? Does it make feel superior by instructing them on how stupid they are?

If you saw someone dumping their trash out in the street, would you not say something?

If you had eaten pork meat with tricinis you would have been punished enough.
There are also other illnesses you can get from eating pork meat. That is why we today are very careful how we handle meat.
Shell fish - wow - also shell fish has to be handle with care and that was not easy in a hot climate thousands of years ago.
Do you even know what is to be sick from a shellfish? There are different forms one can even lead to death.
They probably had a practical reason to forbid this.