LOL. Someone doesn't know where the bible came from.
The Ten Commandments originate from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Laws of Ma'at, for starters. The Creation and the Fall originate from the Epic of Gilgamesh; there's an entire subsection on Wikipedia covering Gilgamesh's influence on the bible. Genesis itself borrows heavily from Mesopotamian mythology. The Exodus can be traced to an Egyptian expulsion narrative. The Moses origin story comes from the Egyptian story of Horus, who was set adrift in a basket on the Nile and suckled by Hathor, a goddess in the form of a cow, which itself is a retelling of the story of the Mesopotamian ruler Sargon, who was set adrift in a basket on the Euphrates. The magical fight between Moses and the pharaoh’s magicians comes from 'The Raid on Aratta.’ from Mesopotamian mythology. The Mount Sinai narrative can be traced back to a 'meeting of elders’ story in the Amorite religion. The story of god tricking Jephthah into killing his own daughter can be traced back to Greek legend. Even Jesus is just a derivation of the scapegoat superstition - substitutional atonement, dying for the sins of others - from Syrian mythology. The "lamb of god" comes directly from that; symbolically they just switched the goat for a lamb.
You... didn't know any of this, did you?
People actually study the evolution of mythology. It's an actual discipline that traces linguistic and thematic offshoots through their ancestral line, similar to how genetic ancestry is traced through gene inheritance.
Hell, we don't even have to go that deep. The Church itself was overt about appropriating paganism; it was literally a policy.
Reformatting traditional religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I to Mellitus, arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions while changing the object of their veneration to God, “to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God”
There's very little in the bible or Xianity itself that's actually original. All the stuff that is original is violent and horrible and quite demented.
Like when the "righteous" Lot offered up his daughters to be raped instead of the angels who were visiting (Genesis), and then later they got him drunk and raped him so that he could father his own grandchildren (who were simultaneously cousins and siblings). Or when the host offered his daughter and his visitor's concubine to be raped instead of his visitor, and they raped the concubine to death, and the visitor then cut her up into pieces and mailed her dismembered corpse out to the coasts of Israel (Judges 19). Or when god sent two bears to murder 42 children (2 Kings). Or when the sun stopped moving across the sky so Joshua's army could finish their murdering (Joshua). Or when Saul demanded 100 foreskins as a dowry, and David brought him 200 (1 Samuel).
As we say, the good stuff isn't new and the new stuff isn't good.
There's nothing historical about the bible. There are no civil records to validate it, there aren't even any dates, and very few locations given, and it's extremely obviously written as a story, not a historical record. Even Jewish scholars accept that the Exodus is a myth, for example. And not only were the anonymous gospel writers not alive during Jesus' purported lifetime, but they either copied directly from each other, or made up stories that were completely contradictory to the other gospels. Try and do a coherent timeline for what happened on Easter (itself a pagan festival, Oestre) and see how far you get.
What's really weird about the bible is that it's the only "record" of anything it claims. The most amazing person who ever lived, who was doing literal miracles, and no scholars, no record keepers, no historians followed along to document the amazing events. Nobody in the cities was talking about it. None of the major schools or libraries or institutions heard the buzz about these incredible events and sent people to see what was up. Only people who weren't there lying about being one of his buddies, pretending to actually be characters in the story.
“In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
-- Bart Ehrman
The bible doesn't even make a claim of historicity for itself, so why are you?
The term “Gospel” comes from the Old English word for “good news.” These books do not claim to be objective histories; they claim to be proclamations of good news. In other words, these books are not historically accurate accounts of things that Jesus said and did. These are books that are proclaiming information about Jesus that is meant to provide information needed for salvation. These books are the good news of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books “pseudepigrapha.”
You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It’s the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means “writing that is inscribed with a lie.”
Bible scholars know that it contains lies.
Etymology
From Ancient Greek ψευδής (pseudḗs, “false”) + ἐπιγραφή (epigraphḗ, “inscription”), literally “false title”.
Noun
pseudepigrapha pl (normally plural, singular pseudepigraphon or pseudepigraph)
Writings falsely ascribed to famous persons (historical or mythical) to lend them greater legitimacy, typically composed many centuries after the ostensible author's death.
Here's another easy one. What's Jesus' family tree? There are literally two contradictory genealogies for Jesus. If the bible is historical, why would they not be able to get it right? Why would they publish a wrong one? Or are they both wrong? Or do they not know at all, and if so, how is it a historical record? If they couldn't get his descendants right, how can we trust their claims of what those descendants did? Do they even cite their sources? What kind of historical record wouldn't tell us where any of this information came from?
And why would historians require "faith"? They're historians. They have records and evidence and such, right? Why would we need "faith" to accept a documented historical record? That makes no sense at all. "Faith" is only needed for things that are false. "Faith" is the substance of things we wish were true... but aren't.
That's without even getting to all the magic, such as the talking donkey, or the stupid tales, like Jesus killing a fig tree because it wasn't the season for figs.
This isn't even controversial among people who study the origin of the bible. You should actually look into it.
I won't tell you any more, though. Don't want to spoil it in case one day you get around to reading it.
