Sensible question. However, the Bible is quite different from other "holy books". According to Sir Isaac Newton, "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." According to one of the directors of the US space program, "the Creation account is as scientifically plausible as many other possible explanations." Why?
1. It seriously postulates an historical basis. Just look at Luke chapter 3, the first five verses. How many historical persons does he list to date that one event? As one scholar said, 'it is based on historical facts, inextricably tied up with historical facts, and may for all practical purposes be regarded as true if the facts upon which it is based are shown to be true.' Just skim through second Kings, for example, and note how a running chronology was kept referring to the dates of rule of various kings, the accepted way of keeping track of dates then. Archaeological artifacts, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder and the Moabite Stone confirming the Bible's historical accounts grace museums around the world, such as the British Museum and the Louvre. Show me a museum artifact confirming one of the mythological religions.
2. It is scientifically accurate. In Job 26:7 (dates 'way before 200 BCE, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greek Septuagint) it says, "He is stretching out the north out over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing." The Law of Moses correctly detailed principles of quarantine in case of disease. Circumcision was given, which reduces danger of cervical cancer in women. It was to be done on the eighth day after birth, when, according to medical science, the infant's antibody level peaks and is actually higher than it will be the rest of his life. In its opening words (Genesis 1:1), it leaves the time of the creation of the universe and earth open, while the next chapter, (2:4) shows that the seven "days" of creation were not literal by referring to them ALL as one "day," and using a different Hebrew word to show that those "days" were solely from the perspective of an observer on the earth, preparing it for habitation. Sir Henry Rawlinson commented on the divergence of languages throughout the earth, 'If we were to be guided merely by the intersection of linguistic paths, and independent of the Bible record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.' (Mesopotamia, Babylonia, where the tower of Babel was said to have been attempted and languages confused.) There are too many things like this to mention here.
3. The candor of the Bible writers. The Bible plasters important Bible characters' mistakes and faults up for all to see. A sign of honesty.
4. Fulfilled prophecy. Jesus in his prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 C.E.) told the Christians to get out whenn they saw Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, as her "desolation is getting near." (Luke 21:20-24) This,in fact, happened in 66 CE when it was surrounded by Roman General Cestius Gallus, who, on the verge of winning, retreated instead. Eusebius, historian of about the 4th century, records that the Christians fled to the mountains near Pella. The Romans returned in 70 CE and besieged the city, swollen with visitors for a festival. 1,100,000 were killed, the remaining 100,000 sold as slaves, according to Josephus' "Wars of the Jews". How did the Christians know to flee if the prophecy was 'written later and disguised to appear as if it had been written before?'
5. Jesus fulfilled some 150 prophecies recorded 200 years before his arrival in the Greek Septuagint Bible (which see.)
Best regards,
Mike