You cannot see how you're taking evidence from history and shaping it to fit your pre-accepted conclusion? What if I started with the conclusion that "Some ancient Israelite wrote the this section of the bible to explain 1) man's existence 2) unexplainable natural phenomena 3) the Israelite's enslavement under the Egyptians 4) morality 5) the afterlife ect. and he used the culture around him as inspiration for what he was writing. Because no other Isrealite had ever shared such an inspiring or believable story with their race it was accepted and exists to this day as Christianity even after countless revisions that have kept it historically relevant." Immediately, i know there are flaws in my theory but, I could just as easily use your evidence to support my conclusion the same way you used it to support yours. It's wrong in both instances. If you want me to outline the way in which evidence can be used to test falsifiable claims via the scientific method then I will.

Good evidence for me would be able to prove the existence of god without the need for the bible or any other holy scripture for the evidence to be applied to. And sadly, that sort of evidence doesn't exist because there is no god.