The Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

Do you know why the Bible is accepted as a reliable historical source? Because there is VIRTUALLY NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION of the history of the Hebrews, giving archaeologists no choice but to use the Bible. I am sure that many of the Bible's stories have historical basis; just like how Homer's "Iliad" was based on the very real event of the Trojan War. There definitely was a kingdom called Israel in existence around 1000 BC, and David and Solomon were probably real kings who ruled over it. The Bible does have historical basis, but it many of its details (such as the ones that directly contradict science) were probably the results of the stories being passed down orally for centuries. And by the way, don't even try to pretend that the Bible gets anywhere near the historical accuracy of Egyptian histories. Egyptians actually wrote down their history as it happened for almost 2000 years. In your defense of the New Testament, all you said was that since the authors were alive during Jesus's time, they must have been accurate sources. I'm not doubting that Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew were disciples of Jesus during his lifetime; however, like I said, they wrote down Jesus's life story in order to spread Christianity, and they definitely stretched the truth to appeal to more potential converts. Just because there were many copies of the New Testament made doesn't make it any more historically accurate, so I'm not really sure why you even brought up "manuscript attestation"... I think that given how, when, and where the Bible's stories were written, it is safe to say that the Bible is DEFINITELY just a compilation of Christian stories that should be taken with a grain of salt. Here are the rebuttals to the rest of your arguments in the order that you made them: -Tell me exactly how "the Genesis account has been shown to be reliable, especially in the field of molecular anthropology". If I'm not mistaken, it actually directly contradicts evolution and several other aspects of science. -I'm not saying there is no sin in this world; humans are stained to the core with sin. However, the Adam and Eve story directly contradicts everything that has ever been discovered in the field of anthropology -The Biblical story of the flood sounds pretty much exactly the Mesopotamian story of the flood, with the only differences being in the names of the characters. This shows that Abraham and his Hebrew followers took some ancient Sumerian mythology with them when they left to search for the promised land. The story of the flood is borrowed from the pagan mythology you fundamentalist Christians disdain so much; how can you keep believing in it? -Even if the shifting sands or whatever didn't happen and archaeologists did find the remains of a very tall tower, it could still just be some random tall tower that the Babylonians tried to build. -Fine, maybe you guys don't think Hell is in the middle of the Earth, but the Bible does still imply that it is an actual pit of fire somewhere out there where sinners burn for eternity. -Yeah sure, God can dwell anywhere, but the Bible still speaks of an actual realm outside the universe called Heaven -You just used lines from inside the Bible to prove that the Bible is valid. If I were to say "Hippos can swim in Pianos," and then say "What I just said is true," would it automatically make my theory about Hippo's true? -Not only did you use Bible quotes to prove your point again, but the the quotes aren't even relevant. I hope I haven't offended you too much :) I look forward to your next argument, Con