What I'm saying is that if an atheist claims there is a problem with a passage in the Bible that there are already potential answers for, then it is up to the atheist to disprove those answers so that he can logically claim there is a problem.
That's not how it works. You're trying to shift the burden of proof.
It's always the job of the person making the positive claim to provide evidence. It is not up to their opponent to provide evidence against a
baseless argument.
Person A: This claim is true because either
x could have happened, or
y could have happened.
Person B: Do you have any evidence that
x or
y could have happened?
Person A: I presented you with the possibilities, it's your job to prove them wrong.
This logic is both flawed and a waste of time.
The kind of answer I'm talking about is the kind of answer that provides evidence to the contrary and therefore defeats the accusation of there being a problem.
What apologists generally fail to realize is that
explanations are not evidence.
What matters is 1. an answer (i.e. a valid answer) has been supplied to the problem so that there is logically no problem
Actually, the problem exists until it has been solved - not answered.
Imagine a multiple choice test.
Solve for
y. 5
y + 7 = 62
A. 50
B. 7
C. 13
D. 4
The test provided us with 4 solutions. One of those solutions, logically, must contain the answer! But if you actually solve the problem, you'll realize all of the choices provided are wrong.
Just because you can come up with a series of explanations for a problem doesn't necessarily mean any of them are true. It's always possible the solution is something you did not think of. If you find a claim in the Bible, you can provide multiple ways in which that claim could potentially be true.
What I'm saying is that if an atheist claims there is a problem with a passage in the Bible that there are already potential answers for, then it is up to the atheist to disprove those answers so that he can logically claim there is a problem. An example of this would be if you found secular anthropological evidence trying to refute a scandinavian Geoffrey, who could fire lightning bolts out of his eyes, as being a charleton who used cheap magic tricks to accomplish his feats. Then that would provide a possible answer to his existence, and it would be up to the atheist to refute the Jeffrian claim by lending more weight to the secular source or defeating it altogether by arguing X, where X would be one of the items below:
A. The secular source dates to hundreds of years after Geoffrey was said to exist and therefore was based on prior Jeffrian sources that have yet to be proven.
B. The secular source is a proven forgery by Jeffrians, trying to support the Geoffrey figure.
C. The secular source is correct in its claims that Jeff was not actually able to fire lightning bolts out of his eyes but used a crude apparatus to do so because most people can't normally fire lightning bolts out of their eyes.
Or, you can simply demand evidence for the entity's existence. If the person who makes the claim refuses to provide evidence, or can not provide evidence, then there's no reason to believe what he said is true. If he does provide evidence, then you can evaluate the evidence he provided and see if it's valid. If you try to prove their claim wrong, you might find yourself chasing ghosts.
Sometimes, we have the resources to prove claims wrong. Other times, we do not. This is why we always demand evidence from those making the positive claims.
They may be right or they may be wrong. But if there is an answer to them already, then why should I logically believe a problem exists?
Your answer should be based off of evidence. If you can't support the answer you provided with evidence, you should re-evaluate your position. If you're still convinced you're right, then you need to concede that your opponent came up with a question you don't have an answer to. In debate, it's okay (and honest) to say "I don't know". And it's okay to say, "I believe this happened, even though I don't have evidence for it." But you can't expect your lack of an explanation to be treated as evidence.
The atheist, in excess of 3000 years later, comes along and tells us - with no supporting evidence - that a Shedeur figure has been fabricated to support a rather mundane and unbiased genealogical record.
Actually, this is a positive claim. The atheist, in this position, would be claiming to know that Shedeur was made up. The burden of proof would fall on him to prove this point.
If he said, "I don't have reason to believe this without evidence, what evidence do you have?", then he isn't claiming to know for sure whether or not Shedeur exists - he's merely asking for the original claim (that he exists) to be proven.
I highly encourage you watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY
(Keep in mind, the video isn't there to disprove monotheism, it's there to expose flawed arguments - using monotheistic arguments as examples. The purpose of linking the video isn't to create doubt among anyone's faith, but to better explain how to avoid flawed arguments.)