The goalposts just won't stay still. "Zooming in" and "zooming out" is fair. You still need to consider the evidence. That's not the same as "spiritual perception," as I addressed earlier.
But when zooming and and zooming out, if you accept non-evidence AS evidence, you beg the question, creating a circular reasoning trap you cannot escape. The moment you say "the means of approach that God used with Israel," you've fallen into the trap. You are now taking as a given that which you are trying to prove. How did God deal with Israel? By parting the Red Sea and destroying the Egyptian Army (never happened)? By leading the Israelites out of Egypt (never happened)? By Noah's flood (never happened)? You cannot assume that which you are trying to prove and cite it as proof of that which you have assumed!
I mean, you can. You just can't make a logical argument for it without being called on it.