Your behavior betrays your rhetoric.
“Why is asking a believer to follow biblical medicine as "punch?"”
Your words (“punching back”). Again, your behavior betrays your rhetoric.
When you opine that morality comes only from human heads usually according to their narrowly defined interests; that any idea to the contrary is the product of childish adults; when you suggest that talking donkeys (and presumably other OT “fantastic stories”) are proof of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition; it can hardly be thought that your intent is anything but to sneer and scoff. What you mention has been material for scripture scoffing since time memorial.
“So, which is it? Do you believe in scientific medicine or biblical medicine?”
A spurious dilemma. Nevertheless, I refer you to a reply I gave some time ago. You will not find it satisfying for your purposes, of course.
What would be your reaction to someone trying to convince you of a religions based on a claim that there are talking pink unicorns on Jupiter?
If I believe something, I am prepared to explain it rationally. I have yet to find someone who will explain to me why a religion must be based on fantastic tales of talking snakes and donkeys and people living inside a fish for three days. Now, don;t tell me that talking snakes and donkeys and people living inside a fish for three days is not a fantastic tale but rather some commonly encountered fact of life!
I have yet to figure out why these same people get offended when I ask these questions instead of just simply telling me why.
What you mention has been material for scripture scoffing since time memorial
Hundu scriptures are much older than the Bible. Is that a reason to believe in them?