Lots of evidence. IF you interpret the words "covered the whole world" as they would have been understood at the time they were supposedly written.
The idea that "the whole world" means what we think of as the globe didn't really emerge until roughly 900 AD.
And there is plenty of evidence in Mesopotamia of flood events which are not inconsistent with conceivable dates for the the biblical flood event and which had the potential to have wiped out a civilization (a city/state and its government) -- thus "the whole world".
There have been many floods in many places throughout history, including the Mediterranean and Middle East. There is no evidence specifically for a global flood with all the very specific characteristics of the biblical flood, or the Mesopotamian flood myth it’s almost certainly based on.
That doesn’t mean these mythical floods had no basis in fact, and weren’t inspired by real floods. It just depends how literally you take the specifics of how they are described in the sources.
Right. If you lived near a lake in the endorheic basin at the end of the Danube, it would sure seem like the whole world had flooded when the Black Sea came flooding in.
Protip: the Bible can still be the literal word of God, because omnipotence implies the ability to use simile, metaphor, analogy, symbolism, and storytelling tropes.
Have you genuinely been unable to identify any? They're manifest and generally well documented.
A nicely topical example, given we've just had Easter, would be around the time of the crucifixion -- was it at 9am on the morning of Passover, or midday the day after passover?
The gospels provide conflicting timelines - Mathew, Mark, & Luke say 9am on passover, John says the afternoon the day after passover. There are myriad other contradictions around the descriptions of the crucifixion mythology: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Contradictions_in_Jesus%27_cru...
This may be a useful jumping-off point for other inconsistencies:
To be completely honest, I am, as you probably might have already guessed, biased in the sense that I accept and believe the Bible.
Still being as honest as possible, I'll attempt to respond constructively to the details you provided:
Instead of myriads, I counted 7 alleged contradictions, of which only 3 are related to the timeline and (again, imho) easily disregarded by answering "while" to the question of "before or after?".
The other 4 alleged contradictions are not necessarily incompatible facts, but rather incomplete, related accounts of a whole situation. What I mean by that is that there are plausible explanations on why those examples are written in different ways.
For example, the criminals mocking Jesus at the cross. Of three accounts, two say the criminals were hating. Only one of the accounts goes on to say that one of the thieves repents. You've got two possibilities here: either you examine the three accounts as a whole and arrive at the conclusion that they both started hating and eventually one repented (do let me know if you honestly don't consider this to be a possibility), or you decide that there's no explanation as to why there are no four identical accounts of that situation, and therefore the whole Bible doesn't make sense.
Another example, when the soldiers compel Simon of Cirene to carry the cross. One of the accounts does not include that, but rather says that He, bearing His cross, went forth into (towards, in the direction, with the intention of getting to...) the place of the skull. Again, the options. Could it be that the one writing the fourth account was not present when Simon started carrying the cross? Is it absolutely so impossible that there's some explanation to that?
We could go on with the rest of contradictions, but that's not the point. I acknowledge that minor details as the colour of a robe might be messed up during in history across 2000 years and multiple transcriptions and translations, because after all, there is human intervention in the Bible. One says the robe was scarlet, one says the robe was purple. Does that really compromise the Truth exposed in the Bible? Does it invalidate His sacrifice at the cross?
I am still to find or be shown a relevant inconsistency, just one point that really contradicts a fundamental truth on the Bible with itself. Something that compromises the fact that God himself gave His Son who died as a person in the world to clean us from our sinful nature and give us eternal life in His presence.
Ah, fairy nuff. I suspected, but assumed good faith. I suppose this means I can't possibly sway you, as much of your core identity is very tightly coupled with these beliefs.
I'll offer a couple of things. A small one first - consider that myriad is an adjective, not a collective noun.
For rational readers, being told that a work is inerrant, and then finding myriad inconsistencies within that work, or claims of historical actions that make no sense within the context of the times & places described, along with the conflicting contemporary historical record (in the case of the bible, basically no contemporary corroboration whatsoever) -- but then having those contradictions or inconsistencies hand-waved away by trying to claim a 'while' addresses them (it does not), or trying to bundle them all up in a dismissive 'does it matter what colour the robe was?' -- can be frustrating.
Obviously an inerrant work shouldn't contain even weirdly specific wardrobe inconsistencies, but that's not the point, as we can agree that one is a relatively trivial error (but an error nonetheless).
So, the moneylenders story - one of the most famous in the book - is a favourite for me.
Few people, including the strong believers, can answer the question of whether this happened early on in the story, or just before the end (ie. did it kick-start the character's main story arc for the next 3-5 years, or was it a key event in motivating the Jewish leaders to orchestrate his death some weeks before he was killed).
And, just like the robe's colour, it depends on which gospel you read, because both versions are in the bible.
Apologists will typically claim 'it must have happened twice', but that's a weak retort given how monumental it must have been in order to be reported in the first place.
I recently finished David Fitzgerald's second book in his trilogy 'Nailed', which was a fascinating read (the first in the series is lighter & shorter, but a compelling introduction to the subject). Prior to publishing the first book, he wrote an essay that you may find interesting [1] that describes some more profound contradictions & provably-false myths / beliefs.
