You Know,
You mention 'mythological counterfeits' which may or may not be similar to biblical accounts.
What is your basis for trusting the bible over other accounts?
The bible is clearly based on oral tradition like all the others.
Take as an example the serpent of Genesis (chapter 3? I forget right now). Was this serpent really Satan the Devil?
Read the Hebrew scriptures, and you will find little mention of an antithesis to God. (Perhaps in Job chapter 1. But this is suspect also as an interpolation. Notice that Satan is only mentioned in that first chapter!) The ancient Israelites attributed everything good, as well as everything bad, to GOD.
The serpent, if you read Genesis carefully, was just a serpent. God said 'crawl on your belly and eat dust'. He was NOT talking to an angelic creature later to be named Satan. He was talking to a snake believed to have legs before God's punishment. (Someone referred to this in a thread recently. Apparently even in the WT they depicted a snake with legs in the garden of eden.)
You believe Paul's words that Satan was 'the original serpent'? That comment was necessary to separate the oral tradition of the 1st century from the ancient, more mythical, oral tradition. At some point in history, it became intolerable to have a God that performed evil works or harmed people. (Read about Zarastrutha and Persian philosophy)
In addition, the bible is now being disseminated because of oral tradition. Would you independently come to the conclusion that the bible was the work of a Supreme God, not having parents or religion to impress that upon you?
Be honest.
Jellomold
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke