Work on the Bible’s Historicity

I’ve looked it over, studying the entire Bible for 20 years, and looking at its historical context—it’s all sound. I actually even understand some of the contentions you’ll use—like you’re talking about “Tyre” with the geography bit—but I know if I dig deeply enough, the Bible’s always sound.

So, just to go through each of your points:

I know the background, and have written a lot about it. It comes from a man named Abraham, and a tribe called the Hebrews, who found God, and migrated out of Mesopotamia, into Egypt, and then into Canaan, and the linguistic tracings prove this in scripture.

The contradictions are not thematic, and that’s all that matters. God’s not a pedant.

There are no errors, the historical provenance of the Bible is actually very strong, and I’ve got an entire answer that proves that, with thousands of pieces of evidence corroborating scripture. Undeniable proof, too.

The legends come from the Patriarchs, and actually your Epic of Gilgamesh proves that, too, that it’s not actually Gilgamesh who tells the flood story but Unuptashem, which possibly shows that the author met one of the Ark Travelers at a tavern, and was inspired to write the epic. Not to mention, the scriptures show contact with Mesopotamia, as they should, in both law and theme, as Abraham was an Amorite, that’s well documented in the Bible.

The forgeries come from Mesopotamia, not the Bible. The Bible comes from the original manuscripts of the Patriarchs, the one coming from Abraham (El) and the other coming from Jacob in Egypt (Yahweh) and we have evidence to corroborate this fact.

I’ve studied the academic theories more than you have—trust me—and they’re so close to discovering the Bible’s true, it’s literally one discovery that’s already made, that has to break into the mainstream, and it’s all over for your High Criticism and Documentary hypothesis.