Actually, the article "New Out-of -Africa Theory Unvieled" recently posted on FR postulates that all human DNA can be traced back to a single mother. This confirms, per your logic, that the biblical story of Eve is fact based.
Chew on that for a while.
Furthermore, archeological records have always confirmed the veracity of bibilcal histories. None discovered to date have conclusively, or even come close, to proving the Bible to be errant, even those going all the back to Abraham, c 2500 BC, the actual dawn of recorded history. Once again, per your logic, this is fact and not myth.
You do yourself a disservice by by mindlessly passing off the Bible so cavalierly. There is demonstrably devine wisdom in it. The inability to recognise wisdom is the definition of a fool.
Here I beg to differ. The chronology in Exodus is quite a bit off, according to the archaeological evidence. Some of the towns listed as destroyed bear no evidence of destruction. Some of the towns (Jericho, for instance) weren't even inhabited at the time of the Exodus, and if you shift the time period to cover a time when Jericho was inhabited and showed signs of destruction, other towns turn out to be uninhabited or inhabited with no signs of the destruction meted out to them in the Bible.
Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence for the Jewish sojourn in Egypt. Nothing in Egyptian records -- no bills of sale, no contracts, no government documents -- nothing indicating the Israelites were ever there.
BTW, subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review. It's a fascinating magazine covering just this subject. You'll love it.
I agree. But you know that they can't see any wisdom from our points. What we believe is beneath them. We are all some unsophisticated ogres that they all so high-mindedly gloss over. But this is just fine. It's all good.
I trust you can prove this statement without citing the Bible? (Using the Bible's assertion of it's own divinity to prove it's divinity is a bit circular).
Come on, that's like finding writings about the Loch Ness monster and concluding it was not a myth because we can show that there was indeed a body of water that was known as Loch Ness.
Since the Bible was written by goat herders (okay, sheep herders too) it is likely they would incorporate common and then contemporaneous geographical knowledge. I mean the very first converts they are trying to win over are their fellow neighbors.
Don't you think it is interesting that the all knowing all seeing god that allegedly influenced the writing of the bible completely limits geographical information to a small region where the Bible was written rather than including, say, concurrent civilzations in the America's, in northern Europe, in Eastern Asia? It's as if the Bible was written by guys who lived and only knew their little region. Funny, that.