> Anyway, thanks very much for all the time you've spent discussing this with me.

You're welcome. It's been a pleasure.

> Ok but a polytheistic Israel appears to fit the evidence better than these explanations.

Concerning this, I radically disagree. Israel has always been marked by a radical monotheism forever being compromised and syncretized by weak, godless hypocritical people in the mix.

> Then the "royal we" in Genesis, the allotment of gods to nations in Deuteronomy 32:8 and and the divine counsel in Psalm 82:1 make sense.

The Bible clearly speaks of a divine council, but the biblical treatment of YHWH's divine council is markedly different than divine councils in the surrounding cultures. In the surrounding cultures, the councils are gatherings of the gods. In Yahwism, the council is one God with various emissaries.

> I don't see how you could conclude that modern Christianity's view actually is the correct one vs a polytheistic Israel.

Israel's perception of God was always different from its neighbors. In the ANE, people believed that the gods were manifested in the forces of what we call the natural world, as well as in celestial phenomena. The revelation of the Israelite God was leading them to something different, but it was a process. When YHWH first appeared to Abram, He neither clarified nor even discussed how many gods there were or whether Abram needed to consider Him the only God. When we get to Moses, the Decalogue states first that no other gods should be worshipped before YHWH. Yet even that phrase stops short of saying how many gods there are. The issue of religious evolution is therefore indecisive, since we cannot know whether the distinction between YHWH and other false gods was always clear and the Israelites either failed to understand this important distinction, rejected its truth, or neglected to reflect it in their daily lives. In other words, a difference should be noted between the revelation and its corresponding expectation on the one hand, and Israelite practice with all of its shortcomings on the other.

But Yahwism in Israel is distinctly monotheistic. No passage anywhere in the OT conveys anything less than the uniqueness of YHWH. The terminology itself is a problem. Monotheism is a useful term insofar as it captures Israel’s insistence that its deity, Yahweh, is categorically supreme. The term proves inadequate when restricted to numerical oneness in the divine realm or two texts that ostensibly deny the “existence” of other deities. For instance, Dt. 4.39 makes a claim that appears to be an absolute expression of monotheism. However, texts that date later than Deuteronomy make similar assertions while simultaneously affirming a “Host of Heaven” that worships Yahweh (Neh. 9.6). Even in very late extrabiblical texts (like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice fragment 1, column 1) the worshipper summons all ranks of heavenly beings to give praise to YHWH.

So the question, “How many deities did Israel recognize?” is far less precise and fruitful than we would wish.

There is a spectrum of possibilities, but we find that biblical writers are capable of expressing YHWH’s uniqueness within any system. One cannot create a chronological evolutionary and definitive graph based on terminology or rhetoric. That's why Smith's efforts about henotheism and monolatry fall short of convincing, and how cannot also claim that "a polytheistic Israel appears to fit the evidence better than these explanations."

> Analysis of the theological evolution of Jesus from prophet to god, as we analyze Mark to John, and of the extra-Biblical concept of the Trinity similarly make more sense as humans changing their ideas than modern Christianity's explanations.

I've studied this theory and reject it out of hand. Mark begins his Gospel (1.1) by claiming the divinity of Jesus. He is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy, the possessor of the Spirit, the divine Son, the fulfillment of the plan of the ages, the King who brings the kingdom, and who demands repentance, renunciation, and full commitment. He is presented as a prophet, the mouthpiece of God, the Holy One of God, and the judge over all who oppose God. And this is just Mark 1. There is no evolution of Jesus from prophet to deity.

Ok but a polytheistic Israel appears to fit the evidence better than these explanations. Then the "royal we" in Genesis, the allotment of gods to nations in Deuteronomy 32:8 and and the divine counsel in Psalm 82:1 make sense. Since you agree that we can't know for certain which one is correct, I don't see how you could conclude that modern Christianity's view actually is the correct one vs a polytheistic Israel. Analysis of the theological evolution of Jesus from prophet to god, as we analyze Mark to John, and of the extra-Biblical concept of the Trinity similarly make more sense as humans changing their ideas than modern Christianity's explanations. I appreciate that you are much more studied in these areas than I am, so apologies if I'm showing my ignorance. What I see your last comment is a strict, narrow standard for problems ("one theory of many" "unprovable thesis") but then certainty with regard to harmonious views ("true as revealed in the Bible"). Isn't your assessment of progressive revelation also "one theory of many" and an "unprovable thesis"? Things like this are hard for most people to spot, but they're an important reason why I think apologetics is concerned with persuasion and not truth. Anyway, thanks very much for all the time you've spent discussing this with me.

> What do you think about the somewhat decent evidence that Judaism began within the Canaanite religion with El as the head ... etc.

It's not decent evidence, but only one theory among many. The Israelites were very guilty of syncretization, so it's impossible to separate out derivation from syncretism. Secondly, it only really proves that Yahwism is part of its cultural context, not that Yahwism evolved from Canaanite religion. There is no clear and definitive evidence of monotheism's origins. Scholars like Mark Smith see a string of similarities that they attribute to derivation, but it's an unprovable thesis. There is on passage anywhere in the OT that conveys anything less than the uniqueness of YHWH, despite some occasions where the apostate Israelite community has compromised and syncretized their faith with their neighbors. But none of it proves Judaism being with Canaanite religion, or that El & YHWH were combined, etc. through your paragraph.

It's also true, as revealed in the Bible, that YHWH revealed Himself progressively to Abraham, his children, their progeny, the nation, and through to the monarchy. It is absolutely impossible to separate elements of progressive revelation from the accusations of derivation. It's simply a theory that cannot be proved, so the "decent evidence" is far from conclusive.

> Psalm 82.1

Yes, the concept of a divine council is accepted in the Bible, but the biblical concept of the divine council is different from either monolatry or henotheism. In the Bible, the divine council is portrayed as a strategy by which YHWH administrates the cosmos, but with some significant modifications to the picture we find elsewhere in their neighboring cultures.

Thanks for your response and continued patience. That's an encouraging response. What do you think about the somewhat decent evidence that Judaism began within the Canaanite religion with El as the head of the pantheon of nation-gods, then YHWH was worshiped in Judea as their nation-god of war, then El and YHWH were combined, then Judaism split off of the pantheon concept and became monotheistic? Evidence also exists for this in the Bible, just different translations conceal it in different ways. If this were true, would that change your belief in Christianity? See, e.g., [url]https://biblehub.com/psalms/82-1.htm[/url]. Note that translations commonly change the names "El" and "YHWH" in the Hebrew text, even though this seems to be hiding the names God told us. Thank you and best regards.

> you may be so convinced of the truth of Christianity that my questions are outside of things you would consider.

It's mostly that I've been in the place of doubt, have done the research, and am confident in my conclusions. I'm always open to more learning. It's obvious to me every day that there is so much I don't know.

> While impressively learned, your interpretations are classically apologetic.

An apologist is just somebody who's done the research. Scholars become apologists for their positions.

> The Bible must be true, and where problems exist, that doesn't mean it's false, just that we don't know, but that's no reason to doubt, because it's true.

This is off the mark. We start with the evidences, and then conclude the Bible is true. We don't start with the Bible being true, and then only accept those evidences that support our preformed conclusion. That's just pure out bias.

Every discipline deals with data that doesn't fit the paradigm. I've read many times of scientists dealing with similar realities. Economists, political scientists, historians... We're all in that boat. Sometimes it takes a small evidence to sway a position, and sometimes it takes great disequilibrium, depending on the subject at hand, the weight of evidence, and the personality of the scholar.

> This is how I feel about apologetics (across all religions, because they use the same techniques): only show the wins, but with the appearance of a neutral educator.

I'm sorry that you have this view. It makes apologists seem manipulative. Politicians are apologists for their policies and parties. Professors are apologists for their position papers. I would hope that a large majority of us try to be honest and objective.

> Anyway, I wanted to be honest with you, and I apologize if any of that seemed harsh or unfair.

Nah, I appreciate your honesty. And I would hope it's mutual.

Another well-written and researched response! Thanks very much for all of your efforts and kind patience. I really enjoy reading your comments.

I may have to discourage you though because you may be so convinced of the truth of Christianity that my questions are outside of things you would consider. While impressively learned, your interpretations are classically apologetic. The Bible must be true, and where problems exist, that doesn't mean it's false, just that we don't know, but that's no reason to doubt, because it's true. You're a much better thinker and writer than that summary, but it still kind of explains what I'm hearing.

If I wanted to support an idea that the Giants were undefeated, I could do that by only showing you a record of their wins. Of course, I know the Giants also have losses. If I only showed you the wins, I wouldn't be trying to [i]educate[/i] you; I'd be trying to [i]persuade[/i] you. If my goal were to sell you a lifetime membership to the Giants fan club, my motivation might not be education at all.

This is how I feel about apologetics (across all religions, because they use the same techniques): only show the wins, but with the appearance of a neutral educator. It makes sense as a strategy because believers are [i]seeking to be educated[/i] about God, and it doesn't work very well if we say the Bible is God-breathed, except for things people added later like the adulterous woman story, the Johannine Comma, the end of Mark, Luke 22:43–44, examples of editorial fatigue and likely more things that we haven't discovered yet.

I do understand that the Bible is quite different from the mythologies of the ancient Near East, when you only look at the ways it is different and claim those differences are the decisive evidence that Christianity is true. A Muslim apologist does the same thing. If the Bible and the Quran's strengths were reversed, you'd be focusing more on the philosophical and scientific, and they'd be focusing on historical arguments, like the ones you've made above.

Anyway, I wanted to be honest with you, and I apologize if any of that seemed harsh or unfair. I wanted to take a chance and be honest because you've made great efforts in your explanations. Thanks very much for all of the time you've spent discussing this with me.

> I'd say the adulterous woman story is fiction because someone added it to the Gospel of John hundreds of years later.

Yeah, it was. There's little debate about that. But amazingly it has a collection of features that show it to be old, possibly authentic, and maybe even historical, even though it wasn't added until centuries later.

[list]* Literarily, it has a lot in common with the Synoptic Gospels of the first century. I mentioned them in my last post: Jesus at the Mt. of Olives, teaching in the Temple, a dilemma presented to him to trap him, the dilemma involves the Torah, Jesus answers cleverly).
* The vocabulary of the text is, ironically, remarkably close to Luke's, who writes in the early 60s.
* There are other possible historical references to it (Didymus the Blind, the *Didascalia Apostolorum* in Syrian, and perhaps even Papias in 125).
* The account sounds so very much like Jesus in several ways (clever, wise, extending mercy to sinners, seeming to subvert the Law but actually confirms it, rebuking hypocrites).[/list]

None of those guarantee its authenticity or historicity, but taken together they made me go hmm. The point is that its addition centuries later doesn't necessarily make it fictional. I don't think there's any way we're ever actually know. It's remotely possible that it was a real story of Jesus that someone decided (for who knows what reason) to add it in to John's record. We can be sure, however, that John didn't write it.

> I haven't read the Quran, and I'm sure it's very different from the Bible ... the same types of evidence do not verify the truth of the Quran

The Qur'an is not a historical text like the Bible. Though it occasionally makes brief historical references, it's much more a philosophical text. Without trying to misrepresent it (i.e., I'm trying to be fair to its character), here are the first couple verses of Surah 2, which are quite typical of the whole thing:

[list]1. A.L.M.
2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
4. And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
5. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.
6. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.
7. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).
[/list]

It's not really historical narrative. It's not anything like the Bible. If you want to verify the Qur'an with any kind of evidence, good luck. It's not that kind of text.

So what about the Bible? We could take any text, so I'll pull Exodus 1, just to pull something (again, not trying to be manipulative, but rather to be fair to the "evidence").

[list]* We have a possible early reference to a nation called "Israel" coming from about 1400 BC.
* Archaeologists have discovered a village at Deer el-Medina that had been inhabited by laborers for over 400 years. Such a scene reflects reality.
* We know that immigrants from Canaan regularly entered and settled in Egypt. There are many archaeological artifacts confirming this.
* We know that a group of Semitics (the Hyksos) actually ruled in Egypt for a season.
* During the 13th c. BC, during the reign of Ramesses the Great, the old Hyksos capital of Avaris in the northeast Delta was rebuilt and expanded under slave labor.
* The logic of enslaving Israelites is that if they are not enslaved they will join the enemy and be driven out. This feeling could suggest the time period when the Hyksos are being driven from the land.
* The place names of Ra'amses and Pithom are real. They were store cities. They existed in the Late Bronze age, and there was extensive construction there.
* The ark of the covenant that the Israelites built has great similarity to one found in Egypt in the 2nd millennium BC.
* A 4-pillared "Israelite" house has been found along the Nile River near Ra'amses.
* An Egyptian papyrus reveals the name of a slave with a biblical name identical to the name of an Israelite midwife in Ex. 1.15: Shiphrah.
* Forced labor was common on Egypt.[/list]

In other words, EVERYTHING about the account rings true. There is evidence that the account is historical. The problem is that we have no direct evidence of an Israelite presence there. But as we keep marching through the text, chapter after chapter, there are [i]mountains[/i] of evidence of historicity, authenticity, and accuracy, so much so that its historicity becomes not only possible but plausible.

> The one detail you left out was that Samson's strength came from not cutting his hair. Isn't that enough to say this is fiction?

It's not that the hair was magical. The point is neither the hair nor its length but instead what the hair represented: The vow to God that he would be different from everyone else in his dedication to the Lord. The cutting of his hair would bring the vow to an end. He was right: when he allowed his hair to be cut, the Lord's blessing and protection would leave him, and his ability to judge the Philistines with the help of the Lord would be gone. Without the help of the Lord, he was no different than anyone else.

> How can you tell that the Biblical flood occurred as a historical fact but that Gilgamesh is fiction?

I'm not convinced that Gilgamesh is fiction. Before you roll your eyes, let me explain. That we have three separate records from the same region telling about the same event allows us to plausibly wonder if they narrate the same historical event. There is no reason to doubt that those accounts and Genesis refer to the same flood. This would certainly account for the similarities. The differences exist because each culture is viewing the flood through its own theology and worldview. Gilgamesh and Atrahasis use mythological, fantastical, and sexual/bloody language, as was common in their theologies. Genesis uses historical language, as was common in biblical theology.

> if the evidence and rationales used to verify the Bible also work to verify other religions and myths, then those evidences and rationals aren't useful to determine truth. Do you agree?

No I don't. I hope from this and the previous conversation, you are getting the honest feel that the Bible is quite different from the mythologies of the ancient Near East, from the Qur'an, and from any fictional tale. The evidences and rationales used to verify the Bible actually do bring us to a point of plausibility of the biblical text, whereas they do not function that way with Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Egyptian texts, and even the Qur'an. The Bible stands quite alone and unique among religious texts.

Hi thanks very much for the effort you put into your response. That's very kind of you and I really appreciate it.

On the first topic, I'd say the adulterous woman story is fiction because someone added it to the Gospel of John hundreds of years later. It's used as if it were part of the Bible, but it's not. I couldn't believe that hundreds of years after John wrote his gospel, an unknown person knew that John forgot to record a real event in Jesus's life that no other Gospel writer knew about. The idea is so dubious that it's best explained as fictional.

On the second, I haven't read the Quran, and I'm sure it's very different from the Bible. My point was a little different. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how material, direct, circumstantial, documentary, and testimonial evidence verify the truth of the Bible, but the same types of evidence do not verify the truth of the Quran, for example. It feels like interpreting evidence to reach the desired conclusion.

On Samson, I agree that details of the story have a historical basis and I appreciate that you acknowledge that some parts might be a little exaggerated. The one detail you left out was that Samson's strength came from not cutting his hair. Isn't that enough to say this is fiction? The story of Spiderman is in a historical setting but it's about a man who could shoot webs from his wrists because of a radioactive spider bite. Doesn't a man with incredible strength -- dependent on his hair -- sound equally as fictional?

On the flood, I agree that the stories differ in many details. My question was a little different. How can you tell that the Biblical flood occurred as a historical fact but that Gilgamesh is fiction? I feel like they're both equally unlikely to be historical with equally improbable details.

Your responses have been very impressive, and I can tell you have spent a great deal of time studying and analyzing the Bible. I think all the things we've talked about fall under this general idea: if the evidence and rationales used to verify the Bible also work to verify other religions and myths, then those evidences and rationals aren't useful to determine truth. Do you agree? Thanks again.

> I think my issue is that I can't tell the difference between a story in the Bible that actually happened vs a story that was just made up

We have to take each one (which I know is cumbersome and time-consuming) because it's not fair to just make a blanket statement to cover all things when there is so much variety. Not only that, but the eras in question cover about 1300 years of history on three different continents. Generalizations aren't fair.

> Something like the later addition of the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53, seems more likely to be fictional but it's presented as being historical.

Now here is something solid we can discuss. My first question would be what about it sounds like fiction to you? It has the earmarks of historicity:

[list]* Jesus was often on the Mount of Olives (v. 1)
* Jesus often appeared in the temple courts to teach (2)
* The Pharisees often tried to trap Jesus (3), especially with "no-win" situations involving the law (their questions about divorce, about marriage at the resurrection, about taxes to Caesar, about the Temple Tax, etc.)
* Jesus often avoided the direct questions and instead went below that to a deeper level of conversation
* Jesus often showed mercy and judgment at the same time (11).[/list]

So there's a quick list. What makes you say it "seems more likely to be fictional"?

> The evidence that the Bible is reliable doesn't really seem different to me than evidence that the Quran is reliable, for example.

Have you read the Qur'an? It's a very different kind of book than the Bible. The two aren't really similar at all.

> Moreover, how do we know Sampson is historically accurate but Hercules is not?

Great question. Hercules was never meant to be historical. His was always meant to be a theological, not a historical, rendering. Samson is a question worth asking. He is couched in historical terms (dates, places), but so might be Harry Potter or any sci-fi (Chicago, the year 2125...), so we need more than that.

He is in the context of a historical book. None of judges, however, can be confirmed. Even archaeologically it is the least known era of the area's history. We have very few artifacts or documents from this era. Close to nothing, actually, even of the HISTORY that obviously had to have been there.

Anthropologically, the book makes sense. After the Exodus there was no central government. The Israelites were under the rule of tribal leaders. Some of the Canaanite city-states were still in existence. Worship of YHWH was decentralized and often compromised. It all makes sense, but there's no proof of anything.

Culturally the story of Samson makes some sense. A Phoenician inscription from the 9th c. reports dedication to a deity by shaving the hair in response to a vow. Israelites were intermarrying with Philistines. Lions, foxes, bees—all make sense. They were part of the landscape during that era. Riddles, yes.

Politically the story makes sense. The Philistines were active in the region at the time.

So here's the deal. Everything about the narrative sounds like history (which separates even this story from Harry Potter), except his exceptional strength. So then we ask, "On what basis do we doubt the parts about his strength?" Let's look at those.

[list]* Nothing is said or prophesied about his abnormal strength in the birth narrative. We only learn that the child was set apart to deliver them from the Philistine oppressors (13.5). No outrageous claims. No particular expectations in that regard
* In Judges 14.5-6 he killed a lion with his bare hands. But something like this just happened the other day (https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-says-killing-mountain-lion-with-bare-hands-was-just-like-a-wrestling-match). So should I doubt the Samson story? Maybe not yet. The text does say it was a young lion (14.5).
* A little later he kills 30 men in Ashkelon (14.19). But it doesn't say he killed them all at one time, as a group, in the same place. He could have killed them over the course of several days, one at a time. I'm still not ready to doubt the story.
* In Judges 15.4, he alleged captures 300 foxes, ties their tails into 150 pairs of foxes, and sets them loose in the fields to burn. First of all, it's historical that foxes and jackals were native to Palestine in this period, so that's believable. But again, we are not given a time constraint. This could have happened over the course of a week or more. The practice itself is believable. The Romans had a custom at the festival of Cerealia (feast of the corn-goddess) of attaching torches to the tails of the foxes in such a way that the flames ultimately consumed the animals. Philistia was grain country, so there are lots about this that are believable. It's a little over the top, but not outrageous.
* Judges 15.7-8 says that he slaughtered a lot of Philistines as an act of revenge and then hid in a cave. OK, that could have happened.
* Judges 15.15 says he killed 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey. OK, a clarification. The same word that means "thousand" also means "clan." So maybe he didn't kill 1000, as the text translates, but more likely he decimated a large group that came after him. If he were a good fighter, and we're talking about a group rather than a 1000, this is a little over the top, but possibly believable.
* Judges 16.3 says he tore a city gate loose and carried it to the top of a hill. This is obviously hyperbole, but it we break it down, we get to a more reasonable scenario. Gates of the era were of 3 parts: the gate itself, the flanking posts, and the locking bar. In this era in this region they were anywhere from 6-12' wide. Is it possible he tore off the locking bar (which would render the gate useless), lifted it and whatever debris came with it to his shoulders, and carried them off in the direction of Hebron, dumping them on a nearby hill that faces Hebron? It's possible, but it sounds like I'm trying too hard. But it's true that he doesn't have to have carried all of the wood, the frames, the posts, and the locks to qualify for ruining the gate and carrying away the parts that would have made it secure.
* The final incident of strength is that at his death he pushed two pillars apart. This is possible. They didn't use mortar in those days, but only the physics of architecture, forces, and gravity. A temple that belonged to the Philistines in the 11th century BC has been uncovered at Tel Qasile. It had two central wooden pillars approximately 2 meters apart that held up the building. A large man could reach them and, with sufficient strength, push them apart. Remember that Samson had been grinding a mill as a prisoner, which would have increased his muscle mass and generally his shoulders and leg muscles. The verb in 16.30 suggests a twisting motion from which we can infer that Samson pushed and turned the pillars off their stone bases. Pushing aside these pillars is not an unreasonable claim.[/list]

In other words, there are more elements of the story that lead to the conclusion that it's historical than there are elements that make us think it's fictional or mythological.

> How is the flood historically accurate but Gilgamesh is not?

There are vast differences between the two stories.

The Gilgamesh Epic:

[list]* Starts with fighting men, prostitutes, wrestling matches, and reconciliation.
* The goddess Ishtar wants a relationship with Gilgamesh, but he refuses. She's angry.
* Her father, Anu, kills Enkidu, Gilgamesh's new friend.
* Gilgamesh wants to know the secret of eternal life from Uta-napishti, the only human that has eternal life.
* the gods want to destroy humanity because they're so noisy.
* Ea warns humanity to build a boat to survive, and to put animals on board.
* The flood is so extreme it even scares the gods.
* Gilgamesh releases 3 birds.
* The waters recede and Gilgamesh offers sacrifices[/list]

The similarities:

[list]* The general plot lines
* The anger of the gods
* The ark, the animals, the flood waters
* sacrifice after the flood[/list]

The differences:

[list]* Many differences in details: length and duration of flood, size and shape of ark, the reason for the flood, the number and identity of the people on the ark, the order of birds sent out.
* The portrayal of the gods. In the Bible there is one God, who is entering into a covenant to assure that the world will maintain order and stability. In Mesopotamia, the gods are in competition/conflict with each other.
* The number of gods. In the Bible there is one; everywhere else there are multiple.
* The reason for the flood: human sin (Bible) vs. humanity an annoyance (the others).
* The extent of the flood: In the Bible, hyperbolically the whole world. Mesopotamia: uncertain. Gilgamesh: partial. Atrahasis: total destruction.
* The length of the flood: Mesopotamia: 7 days. Bible: 40 days.
* Identification of the hero: All different: a king, a normal human, a righteous human, a priest.
* What and who are being spared
* Description of the boat
* Materials of the boat
* The mechanism of the flood
* The kinds of birds and order of birds
* different reasons for the sacrifice
* The fate of the hero after the flood
* Very different theological messages in the story[/list]

> Saying the Bible's stories are true because they had verifiable evidence at the time doesn't really work. We don't know if verifiable evidence existed at the time because one or more stories could be fictional, like the adulterous woman story.

We just have to use our brains and do the best we possibly can.

Hi thanks for your response. That was well stated. I think my issue is that I can't tell the difference between a story in the Bible that actually happened vs a story that was just made up. Something like the later addition of the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53, seems more likely to be fictional but it's presented as being historical. The evidence that the Bible is reliable doesn't really seem different to me than evidence that the Quran is reliable, for example. Moreover, how do we know Sampson is historically accurate but Hercules is not? How is the flood historically accurate but Gilgamesh is not? I have no answers to these questions.

Saying the Bible's stories are true because they had verifiable evidence at the time doesn't really work. We don't know if verifiable evidence existed at the time because one or more stories could be fictional, like the adulterous woman story. If this worked as an argument, then Islam is also true because the Quran contains testimony that its miracles had verifiable evidence at the time. This type of thinking doesn't seem to get us closer to the truth. What do you think? Thank you.