Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

Glad you enjoyed, TruthBTold, and for Dis' benefit, I'll post my cross-examinations of the other "eye-witnesses":

Here's my post on Mark, quoted here so as to avoid the problems of necro-posting. If you wish to reply to defend your witness, Dis, please do so below and not on the original thread:

Mark's Gospel: Anonymous Hearsay
The following is an excerpt from the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV 3rd edition), p57 NT.

Quote:
Although the Gospel is anonymous, an ancient tradition ascribes it to John Mark (mentioned in Acts 12:12 and 15:37), who is supposed to have composed it at Rome as a summary of Peter's preaching (see 1 Pet 5:13).

So the first Gospel, on which Matthew and Luke were based, is an anonymously written account of what is thought to be the story related by Peter of what he saw and heard, at least some of which Peter wasn't a personal eye-witness to but may have heard it from others.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible goes on to say (same page)

Quote:
In the earliest manuscripts, Mark ends abruptly at 16:8. ...In some later manuscripts, Mark's story was "completed" with resurrection appearances of amalgamated elements from other canonical Gospels, to make it conform to their common pattern

So, we have:
[snip]

A dubious source...
...telling us what he heard Peter tell him (hearsay) ...
...about a story that included parts which Peter wasn't a witness to...
...compiled in an account that was later changed...
...from the original version composed four decades after the alleged events took place.

This is what passes in apologetics for a "reliable eye-witness testimony"

And this is your prime witness. Not a good start for your case.