[cogman10]

I may have misinterpreted what you are saying. When I read this

> there is no evidence of anything in the Bible

I interpreted it as you saying "Nothing in the bible has corroborating evidence". Not "the bible is not evidence for anything".

The bible mentions the sun and we have corroborating evidence that the sun does indeed exist. The bible's mention of the sun alone isn't evidence for it's existence.

That said, the bible does provide some soft evidence. Like I mentioned, the fact that Jesus probably existed isn't in that the bible says he existed, but rather the fact that the bible makes errors in his history likely to cover up well known facts about him at the time.

An example of 2 figures that likely didn't exist in the bible are Moses and Abraham.

[RMPR]

> but rather the fact that the bible makes errors in his history likely to cover up well known facts about him at the time.

Out of curiosity what errors are you referring to?

[cogman10]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42452217

[bandie91]

why hold a specific set of writings to a different standard than other books from the same area and timeframe? all texts hold a non-zero evidential value regardless to how people treat those texts outside of academic processes. you don´t take them at face value of course but neither other texts.

[cogman10]

> why hold a specific set of writings to a different standard than other books from the same area and timeframe?

I don't? I know more about the bible than other writings at the time just because of upbringing/curiosity but I don't particularly hold it in high regard.

> all texts hold a non-zero evidential value regardless to how people treat those texts outside of academic processes. you don´t take them at face value of course but neither other texts.

I agree. How strong the evidence for a writing will is will be based on corroborating evidence and other writings.