| Jirakon said: It's not the same at all. Myth don't have archaeological evidence. They don't have scientific or corroboratory evidence. They weren't written by people who were persecuted and even killed for their refusal to renounce their beliefs. Though the Bible was written by 40 authors over thousands of years, it's still incredibly coherent within itself. It's true that one shouldn't solely believe in the "plausible" parts while leaving the rest out, but the simple fact that something is implausible is definitely no sufficient reason to disbelieve it. |
Explain to me how there is more evidence for events that take place in the bible than any other mythological text. I looked at the link you gave earlier in the thread and it shows the finding of anchients texts, but doesn't give any more evidence to support all the events that supposedly take place within the bible. The modern equivalent would be if I took the accounts of soldiers in the Iraq war, wrote them down, then embellished them with my own spin, propaganda and views. The evidence would be present (cities, walls, used guns, phots of soldiers families etc.) that such events took place, but the artistic license of the writer still needs to be taken into account.
It's also worth pointing out that the evidence given on the site isn't much better than the evidence for the Hindu story of Mahabarat. So if you count this as evidence that the bible is true than the Hindu story of Mahabarat is also entirely true.
Many of the older stories in the bible actually have roots in other anchient mesopotamian civilisation myths. For example, the Epic of Atrahasis bears an uncanny resemblance to the Noah's Ark story. There is evidence that a flood event took place (well, that the River Euphrates flooded), but the story itself is not unique to the bible and differences appear from one source to another. In fact, the Atrhasis story is approx. 1500 years older than the biblical version suggesting the biblical story is taken from Mesopotamian mythology:
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood5.html
Again, this doesn't mean that the story is actually true, it only suggests that the Euphrates flooded and that this inspired a story which was subsequently revisited many years later.
It's also flawed to use the bible as a sole historical text because much of it is written from the viewpoint of the Israelites, and was essentially anchient propaganda.
