Historicity of the Bible

Firstly, round one was only for acceptance. But I'll make my opening statements here anyways after I have thoroughly given a reply to the evidence already brought to the table. 1: Word of God-Your first accusation was that the only reason any even accept the Bible as historical fact is due to its position as a religious text. This is not the case, since it is used widely in archeology. Take a look at some of the many archaeological discoveries we have made simply based on biblical text. 2: Scientific fallacies-You claim that the Bible says the Earth is flat, and only six thousand years old. This is inaccurate. Isaiah 40:22 states that God sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth. And in the passage, if you go back to the original language here (Hebrew) the word used is the word for a globe. Also, did you know that long before man discovered that the Earth is suspended in space that the Bible had it down pat? While the rest of the world thought that the Earth was held up by pillars, Job 26:7 says this: "He stretches out the northern expanse, and hangs the earth on nothing". Also, according to many Young Earth Creationists, the Earth would be somewhere closer to ten thousand years, or older. Not six thousand years. That, of course, is only Young Earth Creationists. There are also Old Earth Creationists (who still take the Bible at its word) but agree that the Earth is much older than ten thousand years. They are more in agreement with the scientific community in saying that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. 3: Lack of Evidence-As you can see from my discussions of the above topics, there is clearly enough evidence to ascertain that we can trust the Bible as a historical document. After all, it is the most well-preserved document of antiquity that we have, boasting over 5600 manuscripts. So that answers all your concerns. Moving on to my opening statements. A large portion of academia seems dissuaded of the Bible's accuracy for various reasons including, but not limited to: apparent translation errors, historical errors, scientific fallacies, and even supposed internal contradictions. This, however, is not the case. Firstly, I will address supposed historical errors followed by scientific fallacies, and then internal contradictions of the Bible. 1.) Historical errors: Many claim that the Bible provides no proof of historical accuracy. Many people question whether or not some of the characters depicted were even real. King David, for example, has long been thought to be reserved to myth in the academic world much like King Arthur. Instead of being a historical figure, he is made out to be possibly an amalgamation of other rulers. This, however, was proven false with the discovery of the Tel Dan inscription. This was a tablet erected by a Hazael, King of Aram (today, we call it Syria) detailing a historic military victory. Interestingly enough, the tablet corresponds directly with 1 Chronicles 22. It was the first testament to a Davidic line in Jewish history. Also, some wonder if, indeed, there was a High Priest named Caiaphas during the time Jesus was crucified. For years there was simply no evidence, and that was the fact that skeptics clung to. They were, however, proven wrong when the Caiaphas Ossuary was found. This ossuary (it was basically an urn) dates back to the second temple era (around 30 AD), and it had the inscription of "Joseph, son of Caiaphas" (roughly translated). So Caiaphas had to have existed since he had a son. There are many more supposed historical errors skeptics will claim, but this suffices to prove my point. If the Bible were indeed as inaccurate historically, then these archaeological finds should not be in existence. 2.) Scientific fallacies: As I stated in the above rebuttal, science and the Bible are far more in agreement than many skeptics would have us to believe. We saw how the Bible observed the circular earth long before science kicked in, and how the observation of its suspension in space was not something added in later. After all, it was written in Job. Therefore, this really needs no defense. Sadly, the case for scientific fallacies in the Bible is found wanting. 3.) Internal Contradictions: It has been said that the Bible is "riddled with contradictions". Many supposed errors are then pointed out including, but not limited to: the two different creation accounts in Genesis, the different Flood accounts, and even points of interest during Jesus' ministry. Firstly, the different Creation accounts are not actually all that different. If you actually read, the second account (in Genesis 2) indicates that the Earth had already been formed when God created the Garden of Eden. This is actually a literary technique used by many during this time to show the same event from a different perspective. If God had already formed the Earth when he created the Garden of Eden, then naturally, we wind up around the sixth day since that was when he brought it all together. In it, we see the creation of man in much greater detail than we saw in Genesis 1. Same account, different perspective. Nextly, the Flood accounts are accused of being contradictory since first Noah was apparently told to bring two of each KIND of animal into the Ark, and then he is seemingly told to bring seven pairs of some animals, and one pair of other animals. This actually is quite simple to explain. If you notice, the word, "kind" is not what we refer to as "species". Instead, it is closer to "family" or "phylum". It could also be specified as "genus". So as we see, Noah did bring two of each kind of animal onboard. He simply brought extra pairs of some animals in case he had to make offerings to God. And the end of the story proves that he was right. Noah did have to make an offering. He also needed two doves, and a raven to check for dry land. Finally, we have the supposed contradictions within the ministry of Jesus. One day, Jesus leaving Jericho when he came upon two blind men. He healed them, and went on his way to Jericho. Wait. Say what? I thought he just left from there? Well, that's interesting. In another account of the same event, only one man is present. So was he going to, or leaving Jericho? Was there one blind man, or two? To both questions, the answer is "both". How, you ask? There were two Jericho's: the old city, and the new city. Jesus was, apparently either leaving the old, and coming to the new, or vice versa. As for the two blind men, this is simply a way of speaking. If I show you a table with two apples on it, and then say, "There is an apple on the table", am I wrong? No. There is an apple on the table. In fact, there are two. But, if I had said, "There is only one apple on the table" would I be wrong? Absolutely. You could then take me over to the table, and prove to me that there was more than one apple on the table. Simple as that. The other accounts mention only one blind man, but that doesn't mean that there was ONLY one blind man. I rest my case.