You have provided no justification for ruling out the possibility that the bible is composed of both historical fact and myth. Perhaps you've never considered this possibility.
=============================================================================
To the contrary. The context of my statement was a true dichotomy, i.e. that the Bible is a historically reliable document, or it is not. If the Bible is myth combined in historic fact, then it is a fiction, possibly based on historic fact. If it is a historically reliable document, that does not make it definitive, i.e. it does not rule out other rational inquiry, but it does merit more consideration than evolutionists allow.
Again, at issue is the view of what "truth" is. I maintain that relative truth represents no truth at all.
The whole context of my original statement which was challenged, was that both Biblical creation and evolution are BOTH based on claims from HISTORY. Evolution is not a repeatable science. Evolution is based on evidence and history. So is Biblical Christianity, and the Christian's understanding of Creation.
I maintain that Evolution and atheists begin with the non-sequitur, there is no divinity, or if there is, it's impossible to rationally or empirically arrive at an understanding of such divinity. Then the Bible is weighed against that logical fallacy. Obviously, if there is no such thing as divinity, or the divine is outside the domain of "scientific" or rational discussion, then any consideration of "Creation" as science is ludicrous. From that perspective, at LEAST the account of creation must be myth. But Evolution is based upon the same standard, i.e. history and evidence, as the claim of "Creation Science", yet evolutionist exclude the Biblical account as "unscientific".
I could write volumes in defense of Christianity's factual basis in history, but that has already been done. Nothing I write will overcome the original bias against the supernatural or divinity of the honest atheist or dishonest agnostic. I would add the "theistic evolutionist" to that heap, because whatever god he may attribute evolution to, it is not the God as revealed in the Bible.
SFS
Perhaps you could actually offer an argument to support the claim of truth of Genesis, rather than simply asserting that evidence exists.
Well, that's obvious. Sufis can write volumes about the transcendental truth's revealed to them by spinning around until they get dizzy and pass out. More power to all of you, so long as the 1st Amendment is still in force.