The Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

"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." Pro, does not realize that the Smithsonian Institution is a Secular Instution. This means they are skeptics. The fact that they actually made that statment is not opinion it is fact. The bible is more reilable then Egyptian history. Why? Because it is God's word, and is consistent with history. Pro has not cited me a source to support how the Bible contradicts Science. You can not even compare Egyptian history, to Biblical History. The amount of archaelogical evidence for the OT is overwhelming. Which is why I quoted the Smithsonian Institution's statement about the bible. Egyptian history has purposefully lied about their wars and history in order to make themselves look good. The bible is constantly honest about its history. This just shows that Pro is not willing to accept the evidence. Everytime the bible makes a claim about an artifact, the artifact has been found. I will go ahead and cite you some archaeological findings that have been found. I do not have enough room to write all of them, so here are just a few.1 THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS- discovered in 1947, and not by archaeologists! Bedouin shepherds found seven scrolls or parts of scrolls and fragments, along with store jars and broken pottery jars in a cave overlookingthe northwest end of the Dead Sea. Among the more than eight hundred documents represented by whole scrolls, incomplete scrolls, and a myriad of fragments which have been recovered are complete copies or portions of all the books in the Hebrew Bible(our OT), except for the Book of Esther. These texts are older by at least a thousand years than any previous biblical texts written in Hebrew that we had prior to the discovery. They provide a window into the textual history of the OT prior to the closure of the canon. 2 THE HOUSE OF DAVID INSCRIPTION- The discovery was of a fragment of a large monumental inscription, measuring about 32 cm. high and 22 cm. at its greatest width. Apparently the stone had been purposely broken in antiquity. It turned out that the stele fragment mentions King David's dynasty,"the House of David."3 AMULET SCROLL- The silver amulet thus dates to the end of the seventh or early sixth century. The prayer-like inscription containing the divine name provides the oldest extra-biblical evidence for the name of God thus far archaeologically recovered in Jerusalem. The scripture passage on the amulet is from the Aaronic or priestly blessing found in Num 6:24-25. The owner apparently wore the inscribed, rolled-up silver amulet during his/her lifetime, and people felt it appropriate that such objects should accompany the owner in death as in life. "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"... 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."Yes it does, Multiple attestation is one of the Historical Methdologies that Historians/Scholars use to verify a document. The New Testament is the most attested document in ancient history. Why? Because we have a wealth of manuscripts. I showed how the manuscripts verified that the eyewitnesses were still alive to write their testamony.I do not think Pro knows how historical methodology works. I don't have enough room to write my answer, so I will be brief. Multiple Attestation, External Evidence, Internal Evidence, Lack of Motivation for Fabrication, archaeoogy etc. are all methods used to verify a document/event in history. When historians take these methods, and apply it to the bible. The Bible overwhelmingly exceeds these expectations. The Bible should not be taken with a grain of salt. It should be taken with historical certainty. I do not have enough room to respond to Pro. Pro thinks that Adam and Eve did not exist, and that science contradicts the Genesis account. Instead I will post this link. http://www.reasons.org...I will try and respond with little room I can about the flood account. Yes it is true that there are multiple flood accounts. This would actually confirm the Genesis account, since there is a Universal Source. No other flood account is scientifically and historically reliable like the Genesis account. Using the most conservative estimate available for the length of the cubit (17.5 inches), Whitcomb and Morris have shown that the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty standard basketball courts. Its total volume would have been about 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (a measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (p. 10).God’s command to Noah was to take two of each kind of unclean animal, and seven of each kind of clean animal (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2-3). We should remember, however, that the Genesis word “kind” (Hebrew min) is not the same as the biologists’ “species” of today. Noah did not have to take two or seven of every species of animal. He had to take two (or seven) of every kind. If the ark was thirty cubits high, and if it sank half of that, then it would sink fifteen cubits! If the waters prevailed upward “fifteen cubits,” that would be adequate to protect the ark to float for over a year! No more room to write. Sources below. 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.Pro is dismissing the evidence I see. -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.God does not want you to go there. That is why he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for your sin and mine 2000+ years ago. Repent and believe in Jesus and you will be saved Pro. -Yeah sure, God can dwell anywhere, but the Bible still speaks of an actual realm outside the universe called HeavenNot sure where Pro is going with this argument. -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.No Con, I am not using circular reasoning to prove my point. I did not say the bible is true, because it says its true. Con is putting words in my mouth. I said the bible is true because it has a point of reference to confirm its validity, through history, archaeology, and science. I think Con has a misunderstanding of how History works.Sources:http://www.gotquestions.org...http://biblicalstudies.info...https://www.apologeticspress.org...