(May 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Chad32 Wrote:I've said this 3 times now so pay attention:(May 12, 2016 at 10:12 am)Drich Wrote: I completely understand the argument. However there is a problem with it. The "text" that have been proven older than the bible do not lend themselves to the bible stories as promised. The texts that do, have no surviving manuscripts older than the bible. Meaning even IF that particular religion is older the writings of it could have been taken from the bible, not the other way around.
That's unlikely, given that the societies and their religions are older than the bible. Christianty is a young religion, and you can't really get around that.
Again in some cases the religion May indeed be older, BUT THERE ARE NO SURVIVING DOCUMENTS OF THOSE RELIGION OLDER THAN THE BIBLE!!!!
Do you not understand what that means? For instance in the Case of Zoro-ism Their oldest complete manuscript dates all the way back to the 17th century. Their oldest incomplete document (a few pages of their book) is from the 10th century AD.
http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroast...cripts.htm
Do you not see what you are claiming of Christianity is most likely true of the religions you said Christianity 'borrows from?'
