Can't tell the Bible from a man-made book? Ridiculous!

Always finding something at EvC to bemuse me. This one isn't about evolution so it doesn't really belong here, but it doesn't really belong on any of my other blogs either. Just a typical EvC comment I feel like responding to:

It is hard to say what an ideal reasoner, knowing nothing else of the universe, would make of the Bible. But in contemplating this question we might also wonder what it would make of the Popol Vuh, Aesop's Fables, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Peter Pan, the "Hitler diaries" or Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War. How would it tell what was meant as fiction, what was meant as fact but wasn't, what was meant as fact and was, and what was known by its author to be fiction but intended to deceive others into taking it as fact?

The inability to distinguish the Bible from the rest is simply absurd. But there is no point in rehearsing all the marks of veracity that authenticate the Bible as God's word, though there are plenty. In fact there's no point in arguing these things at all. Its supernatural credentials are obvious to one who believes it, and believing it leads to deeper believing. That's how faith works. As Pascal said, God's word gives light to the believer but darkness to the unbeliever. These things are supernatural and can't be resolved by natural means, so there is no answer that can be given.

(By the way, the fact that some huge proportion of the posts at EvC are attempts to debunk the Bible all by itself shows that Evolution is the enemy of God -- something they try to deny because some think they believe in God, although they only believe in a false God they are able to combine with Evolution.)

==========================
And while I'm at it I should give a little support to the other poster in this conversation as he's making a good point that nobody else there is going to recognize:

The topic is whether or not the use of the Bible and other historical literature for generating knowledge about the physical world can within the scientific method:

Jon in Message 1:

I propose that the use of the Bible and other 'historical' literature to generate knowledge about the physical world is not, as many claim, unscientific or (dare I say) 'supernatural', but instead perfectly good science differing only in results (by means of different inputs) from presently accepted knowledge in the overall scientific community. To clarify, I am not addressing specifically the knowledge itself that is so generated, but rather the methodology—that is, the generation of knowledge about the physical world based on the reading of histories.

Good point Jon. It's perfectly reasonable, obvious even. History is witness. It needn't be supernatural to be useful as witness. But obvious though this is they will go on denying it -- raising questions about how impossible it is to tell history from fiction etc etc etc.