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.

"As the human genome (and behavior) got more and more corrupted, life expectancy dropped dramatically... Is it really that hard to comprehend? "

It's not that it's hard to comprehend the idea you're pushing, it's that men living more than 900 years in a savage environment is such an extraordinary claim that it requires extraordinary verification. And I see none.

As for the link you posted, it does coalesce historical details and narrative in almost every sentence, committing the sin -in logical terms- of trying to achive truth by adjacency.

An example: the Jericho walls. That site states

"discovery in 1930s by John Garstang. The walls fell suddenly, and outwardly (unique), so Israelites could clamber over the ruins into the city (Joshua 6:20)."

Now, no free thinker would have a problem with the idea that there was a city of Jericho, that it was subjected to a siege during which  its walls crumbled in an episode that became a narrative piece for the local tribes and then was incorporated in the bible.

Thus, a free thinker, even an atheist one, would have no trouble with the archeological discovery of the Jericho walls, just as they had no trouble with Schliemann discovering the historical remains of Troy, with traces of several wars culminating in significant parts of the city being burned down.

But just as the remains of Troy don't prove the narrative of the Ilyad was actually faithful to reality regarding the greek gods' interventions for a chritstian reader such as yourself, so the remains of walls around the town of Jericho aren't proof of the narrative part ( ".. so Israelites could clamber over the ruins" is a telelogical argumentation).

As you see, it tries to get truth value for the narrative part (the walls crumbled when the israelites blew the horns and sent their war cry, because god wanted so) by adjacency with the historical core (existence of Jericho's walls) which is supported by archeology. That's poor argumentation and we deserve better, including you.

I know a lot about Vikings because I have some of their blood in me (and I have read some decent books about them).  Anyways, Vikings mainly converted to Christianity for business/status purposes (later generations had more faith in Christianity).  It wasn't like they truly believed it was just good business (they still performed some Viking rituals/weird acts even after they said they were converted (like killing a bunch of enemies for a wedding or festival).  Sure they raided but after the raiding period a lot of them started moving permanently to areas.  Some moved to Russia and where called Rus hence the name Russia (they helped clear water trade routes in Russia from barbarians), other settled elsewhere in Europe.  One famous settlement was Rollo and his band settled in Normandy, France.  When a Frank came and asked them who their king was he got this in reply, We have no king we are all equal.  That is where the all men are created equal started from (this is from wikipedia "In 885, Rollo was one of the lesser leaders of the Viking fleet which besieged Paris under Sigfred second official king of the Danes. Legend has it that an emissary was sent by the king to find the chieftain and negotiate terms. When he asked for this information, the Vikings replied that they were all chieftains in their own right").  Eventually, the settled Vikings became more and more like their once adversaries and integrated into European society.  Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are all named after Viking gods.  Vikings have contributed a lot more to modern day society (thought, reasoning, trade) than the church led Europeans of the Middle Ages.  My favorite saying comes from Eric the Red whose son was Leif Erikson.  He said that the worse/darkest day in Greenland's history was the day the missionaries came.  His wife was Christian and when she wanted a church he threw a rock as far as he could from his house and where it landed he allowed the church to be built there.

Matthew and Luke couldn't even write about the birth of Jesus without contradictions, and they knew the guy!

Just look at Matthew's and Luke's geneology of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Matthew and Luke knew that Jesus needed to be the decendent of David and born in Bethleham to fulful prophecy, but you would think that they would get together when they wrote about his geneology instead of just making it up on their own.

Who's your daddy?

That is a good question for Jesus considering the "virgin" Mary wasn't a virgin at all.  The biggest hoax in human history. 

Mary - Uh oh, Joseph I am pregnant. 

Joseph - What???  I didn't even sleep with you!

Mary - Yea, weird huh it was God though! 

Joseph goes on rampage then falls to sleep and has hallucinated dream that somehow God really did impregnate her to ease his mind.

-

Both Luke and Matthew's geneology is inaccurate with the Old Testament geneology of David.  So whatever way you go about it, the Bible is erroneous.  You would think that if you were going to write an infaliable book, they could have bothered to read first chapters.

-

your post is so incredibly ignorant, it makes my stomach hurt from laughing. God never ''slept'' with anyone. that is a very stupid and sinfull thing to say... Mary was a virgin and she was pregnant without any sexual intercourse... the angel told her that she was blessed and that she is carrying a son of God...

Did you even read the Bible or did you just come here to shit on other people's beliefs?