@OgreZed By Biblical history, I mean the Council of Nicaea, translation of the Bible into English, the protestant movement, religious movements in the US, the compilation of the Bible and how the books were chosen and ordered, who likely wrote the books, and so on.
The question is how many Biblical stories are actually verifiable history? Or are they as real and as useful as the stories about the Norse and Greek gods? Or Aesop's Fables or Grimm's Fairy Tales?
I suspect the number of verifiable stories in the Bible is very small, and likely limited to things like conquests and the rule of certain kings. There is a mix of good and bad in the Bible stories, but the same can be said of Norse and Greek ones. I don't know that I'd rate any one over the others. All of them give us a look into the cultures of the people who told the stories.
The Mormons have additional scriptures "documenting" history. Are they less (or more?) believable than the New Testament?
It depends on which LDS/Mormon scripture you are talking about. The Doctrine and Covenants does include real events. Considering evidence related to ancient American civilizations and settlements, the Book of Mormon does not appear to detail real events at all. If only looking at historical accuracy (excluding all theological claims), I'd put the New Testament below the Doctrine and Covenants, but above the Book of Mormon. I don't believe any of the theological claims, but if I had to rate them, I'd say the Bible is more believable than LDS/Mormon scripture because it claims less.
