> what do you think it says about the giants?
"Nephilim" possibly means "giants" (a translation derived from the Septuagint and the Vulgate), but that translation is dubious. The term possibly comes from the root *npl*, means "to fall upon," i.e., invaders, tyrants. Various other meanings have been suggested, such as warriors of strength and prowess (cf. Num. 13.33). The Numbers verse suggest that they were a taller people, like the Dinka or the Tutsi of Africa, which has caused some to translate the term as "giants." It's more likely that they were heroic warriors, as the rest of the verse (Gn. 6.4) says.
> A global flood that killed everyone
Yet another reason to consider that the Bible doesn't require the flood to be global. How could the Nephilim survive if no one survived?
In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.
Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.
There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".
> The wickedness of mankind and the angels having sex with the daughters of men creating giants were the two reasons for the flood to take place which would last 40 days and 40 nights.
Genesis 6.1-2 are notorious difficult to translate and interpret, and scholars have yet to figure it out. The most reasonable explanation I've heard is that it is royal heroes of antiquity. Even in Israel sometimes kings are termed "sons of God." In the ancient Near East kings were commonly understood as having a filial relationship to deity, and were often considered to have been engendered by deity. Many cultures believed in the divine descent of kings. The concept shows up in many inscriptions. Gilgamesh is portrayed as 2/3 god and 1/3 man (1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (9.49). It is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, but there's also the possibility that it's speaking of royal elites.
The interpretation that it's angels having sex with man women doesn't hold water. The New Testament teaches that angels don't marry (Mt. 22.29-30; Mk. 12.24-25; Lk. 20.34-36). That interpretation also creates the problem of humans being punished for the sins of angels, which is not just. In addition...
* Cohabitation between angels and humans has no immediately obvious connection with the purposes of Genesis.
* An angelic intrusion is out of place in this sequence of episodes recounting the advance of human sin.
* Prior to this text, no mention is made of angels—not even of their creation.
* The NT indicates that the angels do not function as sexual beings.
* Judgment comes on men, not angels, even though this interpretation would make them (angels) the perpetrators.
* Angels are never called “sons of God” anywhere in the Pentateuch.
So it's not likely talking about angels having sex with human women.
> Noah finds himself atop a mountain releasing three birds (because he couldn't just look over the side to see if there was any water beside him)
The birds have specific purpose. The raven (Gn. 8.5-7) lives on carrion. He was not expecting it to return. If it does, there isn't habitable land anywhere yet. The dove has a limited ability for sustained flight, in contrast to the raven. It's a low-flying bird. It will only perch on places that are dry and clean. It requires plants for food. As long as it returns, there is no landing place. Ancient navigators were known to use birds to find land, but Noah is not trying to find land, he's already on it. He needs to know if there is habitable land nearby.
> It seems odd that they all seem to talk about the same event, which we know wasn't global.
I agree that it wasn't global. The story is characterized by several hyperbolic devices (the extent of the flood, the size of the boat).
> This type of story is mythical in nature
The biblical story isn't mythical, and differs in significant ways from the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics, though they are probably all telling their version of the same historical occurrence. The Babylonians and Mesopotamians put it in the mythological context, while the Bible puts it as a theologically-interpreted historical event.
> The creation story
The biblical creation story shares almost nothing (or completely nothing) in common with the ancient mythographies. In those the earth and human come from the wars and sex of the gods.
> the tower story
The tower story relates the conquering of Sumer by the Babylonians in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium. It's a historical event.
> his is just Noah, but the majority of the other characters I said don't exist are based on these types of things.
That's not good enough. The patriarchs and prophets of the old testament are nothing like the mythographies of the surrounding cultures. Though you've pointed out some similarities between Sargon and Moses, I've shown that similarity doesn't mean derivation, and that the common elements of the two stories are practices so common in the various ancient cultures that there's no reason to think the two are related. Jimmy Carter was wealthy and became an American president. Donald Trump was wealthy and became and American president. Therefore Donald Trump's story is just a copy of Jimmy Carter's? Of course not.
> yet nobody ever mentions [Jesus] until 40 years after he died
The majority of writings from the era have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's *Mediterranean History* is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his *Universal History* in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. That our lack of extra biblical references about Jesus is evidence against him is disingenuous at best and plain false at worst.
> If it wasn't for the Romans establishing it as the state religion
Another mistake. Rome didn't establish Christianity as a state religion. In the Edict of Milan Emperor Constantine allowed tolerance for Christianity in the Empire, but he (nor any future emperor) never established Christianity as the state religion.
> My conclusion still stands
You have yet to substantiate any part of your thesis.
* You haven't presented a case proving Jesus to be fictional. I have presented a case from Roman and Jewish historians evidencing that he was.
* No one has any evidence for (except for the Bible) or against Elijah's historicity. You haven't substantiated your case there.
* David. The Tel Dan Stele gives evidence of a historical David. You have given nothing in rebuttal.
* Solomon. There is no evidence for him, nor any against. You haven't substantiated your case.
* The judges. The least known period of Canaan. No one has any evidence here, you included.
* Moses. I've given some questionable evidence for him, you've given nothing to substantiate your case.
* Abraham. There is no evidence for him, no evidence against him. You haven't substantiated your case.
* Noah. Neither of us believe in a global flood. The records we have from the ancient Near East could easily indicate the historical occurrence of a massive flood, a boat, and animals. You haven't substantiated your case that it couldn't possibly have happened.
Your conclusion doesn't stand. You haven't supported your thesis.