Good points all.
Must disagree. Christianity is based on Christ. Christ also appears in the Koran (where he was heralded as another Prophet) and other religious texts, so Christianity's validity is not solely dependent on the Bible. Judaism uses the Bible, but only the Old Testament, completely ignoring the New. But having said that:
I agree heartily that there is GREAT exaggeration in ancient texts. Tower of Babel? Probably the highest building ever seen(at the time), maybe it was 40' high? But embellishment is common in all journalists. The flood? If the only known world was between the Tigris and Euphrates, and it flooded, then the whole world indeed did flood, from their point of view. Think of Europe, bubonic plague. The "whole world" had the plague, since the Americas had not been discovered and everywhere you looked, there was the plague. So these exaggerations, from our perspective, could be valid observations from the times. After all, we say the fastest airplane ever is the SR-71. Who is to say there won't be something faster in 2000 years? If (and when) there is, won't those future people discount our claims of the SR-71's speed as ludicrous?
Agree in part. There are numerous adaptations in the dates of holidays that Christianity made to match more closely to pagan ritual dates. All Souls Day is a good example, it's Nov 1st for Catholics. Just after Halloween(Oct 31), which was the Samhain celebration for pagans. Even Christmas can be seen to be moved to a time near the winter solstice. It's too cold in Jerusalem in December for shepherRAB to be out all night with sheep; Jesus was probably born in the summer, but the fledgling Church again made date changes, so as to coincide Christian holidays with pagan ones to make the transition easier. So along with the date changes, it would make sense that certain aspects of Christ's life story would be changed to match other stories from different cultures.
I think this is where the Bible becomes a bit less than historical. With all the changes to dates, stories, etc. It becomes more of a persuasive book than a factual one. When you have semi literate monks copying a couple thousand pages by hand, in candle or lamplight, and translating to boot, there are going to be imperfections, errors and embellishments.
Awesome question. From a Catholic point of view, Catholicism is the single valid religion, as it was started by Jesus - God himself. Other Christian religions see themselves as valid, since they are oRABhoots of Catholicism and split due to differences in bureaucracy or teachings. (Well known case in point, Henry VIII and divorce, split and founded the Church of England). The Jewish faith considers themselves a valid religion. So do the Muslims. One common thread for all of them is they all worship the same God.
Valid in what sense?
The rest of your post is irrevelant because it hangs upon a belief that I don't believe in a God(s). That is not true. As such, a debate is pointless as I do not hold such a stance. Besides, that is ludacrious. You cannot prove or disprove dieties. They are outside the realm of the natural. You cannot prove the supernatural with the natural.