Here we go, start pickig things word by word...
How do you know this?
Because Mormonism and Jehovah’s witnesses were not around in 1600, Bible was.
Actually, both Judeaism and Christianity are highly derivative. They both take much of their mysticism and liturgy from other, older religions. Most of the Hebrew rituals are taken from pagan rituals. Christianity takes many pagan rituals as well, and much of it is very similar to both Zoroastrianism and the teachings of the Jewish Essene sect.
So no, it's not particularly original.
Similar doesn't mean "taken from". And how do YOU know that there are older religions than Christianity? How do you know rituals were taken from other religions? I don't think you were there at that time.
Corrupt in what way? There have been plenty of corrupt church leaders throughout history, up to the present day. If you mean less corrupt in terms of doctrine, then what do you think about the notion of the apostolic councils? Also, how do you know that information wasn't lost along with way?
It can become corrupt in the way that changes the original meaning of the words. In Israel of old times, Bible copying process was very important business and had incredible quality assurance. Copies had to be identical to the last letter. Of course it is hard to do when the book is translated to a different language, so sometime in 16 century there were too many translations of the Bible, some of them were corrupt, so King James ordered a new translation from Hebrew, which I think is the closest to the original as you can get.
I agree with you that leaders and councils can become corrupt, that is why I don’t listen to people but get my doctrine from the book directly.
Again, how do you know? Even if Genesis were signed by Adam and Noah and Moses, that wouldn't mean that Adam and Noah and Moses actually penned it.
Actually it would, that’s why they signed it.
Also, quite a bit of the New Testament is not written by people who ever met Jesus. For example, Luke, who wrote a Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, was a follower of Paul, who was doing his thing after Jesus died.
It also contains the story of Paul, who was there with Jesus, and his story matches Luke's
Next, there are passages in the Bible which simply could not be actual accounts of what happened. My favourite is the scene where Jesus speaks to God in the garden of Gethsemene.... nobody was around to hear that soliloquy, and immediately upon its conclusion, Jesus was arrested and killed.
And how do you know nobody was there? Solders didn't appear out of thin air they had to walk up to him, they could have heard and saw what Jesus was doing and saying as they were walking toward him, also some of the Jesus’ pupils were there and tried to defend Jesus, they probably were near by as well.
Furthermore, much of the New Testament was written over thirty years after Jesus died.
So? People still write books about WW2 and holocaust, so what?
So yeah, turns out that some of it at least was written by a guy that is born years later.
Again, It doesn't contradict previous writings. Perfectly acceptable.
Furthermore, councils of people had to get together to decide what was going into the Bible, and what wasn't. How do you know they got it "right?" How do you know they didn't manipulate the results for political purposes?
I'm sure those people were not politicians, but religious leaders.
All of the stories were talking about the same thing, I think it was the matter of picking the ones that were easier to read, or maybe ones that were in better physical shape than others.
So, basically, you believe that the Bible is true because you believe that the Bible is true. Nice. Guess I'm gonna need some of those ginger pills after all.
I believe in Bible because it hasn't been proven wrong. And whatever "science" pushes as alternative (big bang and evolution) has not been proven right.