That's a lot of information.
That's good that you do your research.
I appreciate that. ...and yes, for the most part your information is correct. However... not all.
According to whom?
Consider...
You were given
this link
Although it is not verified, it does tell us something.
1)
Time is often needed to reveal truth, isn't that so?
Can we always rely on the accuracy of our secular records?
Consider one finding of a historical source:
Manetho
In
regard to Manetho's relation to his Greek predecessors in the field of Egyptian history, we know that he criticized Herodotus, not, as far as we can tell, in a separate work, but merely in passages of his History.
there were many errors in Manetho's work from the very beginning : all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers.
Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible : in some cases the names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.
If one may depend upon the extracts preserved in Josephus, Manetho's work was not an authentic history of Egypt, exact in its details, as the Chaldaica of Berossos was, at least for later times. Manetho introduced into an already corrupted series of dynastic lists a number of popular traditions written.
So historical inaccuracies do exist, and can distort true Chronology. Agreed?
Why would one so quickly and readily accept Egyptian history - a nation so steeped in myth and superstition, and pride in their gods - which were, by the way, men. Why trust their data, and discard the record of men who humbly reveal their failings as a nation, and as individuals?
I find that interesting. Don't you?
2)
Where did language originate?
Where do all our languages come from?
What was the first universal language?
These are questions that get a resounding, 'we don't know.' Not the case with the Bible.
A big chunk of history is missing from your sources, so how can you determine what is the truth?
You can't determine that something isn't true simply because you don't want to accept it. You can't disprove a historical document, on the basis that, 'you think it is false'. Agreed?
No you have not proven the Bible to be false, so don't even go there.
The Bible has been proven - that's PROVEN - no guesswork or inference required - to be historically accurate - time and time again.
Solid evidence - etched in stone, or fragments of other materials.
I'm not going to bother with the pages of information that verifies that (It's too long, and unnecessary here)
I will simply put two - one for old; one for new.
(This book contains a whole heap)
The Monuments and the Old Testament
(page 78 & 249)
In the years 1884-86 a French engineer by the name of Dieulafoy carried on excavations under the auspices of the Louvre Museum, Paris, at Susa, or the Shushan of the book of Esther.
The scene of the book of Esther is laid within the walls of Susa, and most of it within the limits of Shushan the Palace.
These facts render the ranges of ruins of old Susa of double interest to every student of Bible history. These mounds cover the buildings in which some of the most important facts of Persian history occurred. Probably there is no city where the very palaces in which the scenes of the Old Testament narrative can be so accurately reconstructed.
Pontius Pilate
Critics questioned whether there was a Roman governor of Judea named Pontius Pilate.
The evidence has been discovered and closed the mouth of the hungry lions. Interesting catch to that, since evidence also surfaced that proved his book was writen well before critics claimed.
Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, serving under Emperor Tiberius from AD 26 to 36. He is best known today for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
The sources for Pilate's life are an inscription known as the Pilate Stone, which confirms his historicity and establishes his title as prefect; a brief mention by Tacitus; Philo of Alexandria; Josephus; the four canonical gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; ...
UNTIL 1961, there was no concrete archaeological evidence that Pontius Pilate, the fifth governor of Judaea, ever existed. There were accounts of him, of course, not least the accounts in the Gospels. But the records of his administration had disappeared completely: no papyri, no rolls, no tablets, no (authentic) letters to Rome. The Roman ruins that remained in Israel seemed to have nothing to do with him. Even his aqueduct - a project that got him into plenty of trouble at the time - appeared to have crumbled away.
In the summer of 1961, however, Italian archaeologists found a piece of limestone, 82cm wide by 68cm high, in the ruins of a sports stadium in Caesarea, beside the sea.
Pilate stone - Wikipedia
So
there is concrete evidence both in the so-called old and new testament which confirms the Bible to be accurate and reliable historically. One or two pieces of evidence that appear - note APPEAR, to be missing, or that may simply be ignored, does not invalidate the other 85% or more, of solid evidence.
Aside from that, evidence is always coming to light. Nobody can say they know this or that, when they don't have all the facts.
There are a few more evidences for the Bible's truthfulness, and Christians therefore see no need to doubt the scriptures, despite what critics say. The scriptures prove true in identifying this situation as well.
I agree one can say, 'I don't see any evidence, or there is no evidence', but the same thing can be said about evolution. I don't see any evidence, and as far as I am concerned, there is no evidence for a universal common ancestor, nor evolution according to Darwinism.
I may go so far to say, I don't believe there is any either, but to say I know... I am still waiting for the ultimate truth to be revealed.
I will say though, that I believe with 100% certainty that I am on that path to ultimate truth.
