Saying that "the bible has stood the test of time" is a false assertion.
Based on what criteria.
We've only been closely examining it with skepticism for a few hundred years and only stands up because people have placed more value in faith than evidence, so, when it comes time to decide if the bible is historically accurate, those people choose faith to make their assessment, not evidence. Av is a good example.
Only God in His physical form is beyond sight of human eyes, to approach God in this way requires a condition called 'holiness'. Anyway, faith in the actual 'seeing' of God does not exclude phenomenon of miracles. The Bible actually basis credibility on the prediction and literal fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem with the evidence is that if the New Testament is right, you already have it:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
Now I spend a great deal of time looking at the evidence, considering arguments for and against, mostly against. The Bible is not a story book that was made up as they went along, there are internal, external and bibliographical tests.
But what is funny is that among those with the most resources and a vast collection of artifacts to perform such tests and truly examine the evidence, ahem, the RCC, a large number of higher clergy have determined that the bible fails as a historical or literal document.
The RCC like the Orthodox Churches, Protestant and virtually all Christian scholarship hold those texts up as redemptive history. We determine (by we I mean Christians) whether or not the testimony is worthy of faith based on our persuasion from the credibility of the text.
You are so stuck up on that word, 'literal', it's not based on private interpretation, it's not based on systematic interpretation, translation or whatever you like to call it. It's based on the various historical books that are cleared identified and intended to be, historical.
To them, it holds allegorical and metaphorical truths, but isn't, at least regarding the OT, a reliable document for determining historical events or their true outcomes.
There is a criteria for that you know? We are not talking about allegorical and metaphorical truths that are like chasing ghosts in the fog. Tangible, explicit testimony to Genesis in the New Testament clearly indicates it was regarded as literally, historical. Now if you want to talk about evidence, how about you compare a couple of choice historical books from the New Testament to any other document from the ancient world? Then. tell me what one would reasonable criteria for determining the 'genuineness' of the text.
Here is one approach:
Rule One: Sufficient Probability That Their Testimony is True
Establishing Truth by Competent and Satisfactory Evidence
Tests for Credibility:
Their Honesty
Their Ability
Number and Consistency of Their Testimony
Coincidence of Their Testimony with Collateral and Contemporaneous Facts and Circumstances
Acquiring the Value and Force of Demonstrations (Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)
Now that is intended as an example of how a credibility criteria would look for an honest examination of the facts. However, the facts are clearly defined by the narratives blending into a complete description of redemptive history past, present and future. While that seems incredible and perhaps laughable to the modern secular mind, the Bible as credible history is a subject that has come up constantly throughout history. The undeniable truth here is that neither science nor religion get to define how the Bible gets interpreted, the Bible (authors of books...etc) gets to determine that.
Miracles are what these dreary debates are about. The credibility of the testimony of Scripture must be factual, not because I say so, but because that is what the Bible actually says.
The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, (Greenleaf, Testimony of the Evangelists)
The truth is, you have no idea how Christians investigate and defend the credibility of the Scriptures. The truth is that you have not offered a single scientific or religious reason why the Bible cannot be trusted. You have not even demonstrated an understanding of what it actually says.
Pontificate about science all you like, you got a lot to learn about Christian and Jewish scholarship before you start making categorical rejections as if it were a conclusion. Stop pretending this is a scientific conclusion based on evidence, you have not the slightest interest in the evidence. What you are doing comes before an empirical test, based almost entirely on a assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. A practice, falsely so called, science.
So what is your definition of 'science'?
Have a nice day
Mark