Reply to More of Your Questions

re Bible and science

Yes, the Bible isn't scientific. It's a historical document. For that reason, scientific method with its controlled, replicated experiments doesn't apply to it. For historical claims, we use the evidentiary method. We look at the witnesses, the claims, and corroboration. From an empirical standpoint, we can also look for predicted vs actual effects if the work makes objective claims. The Bible is one of the most incredible sources from a historical standpoint. Then, my evidence page has an "Impact" section showing what His Word claimed it would do vs what it actually did. The two matched in a way that's unmatched by anything else that I'm aware of.

On model of the universe, many religions have models that wildly contradict observations of the world. Scientists used to believe the universe existed forever without a creation event. The Bible countered scientists of the time saying that God spoke the universe into existence from nothing, "stretched" the "heavens" out into their existing form, that it would break down without being actively sustained by its Creator (us too), and that it had a definite end. Later scientific claims included the Big Bang theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, cosmologists observing the universe is more precise than anything we've designed, and that it will end in a Big Crunch or Whimper. While the Bible was often validated, the scientific theories often came and went with large contradictions among them. Why would you trust what they're saying now?

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/the-universe-confirms...

Also, before I came to Christ, we were dealing with the "Replication Crisis." The scientific method requires each claim to be independently replicated to counter error or fraud. Reports showed much of science wasn't replicated. I already noticed people just believed, cited, and spread claims of scientists without checking the facts. The scientists, under "Publish or Perish" problem, already were unreliable witnesses, too. Add the Replication Crisis to find that "science" is actually a religion whose beliefs were more akin to dogma. Their sharing without fact-checking is like evangelism on blind faith. Some of it was properly replicated and worthy of the label science, though.

Why would you trust unverified claims on unverified claims on unverified claims made by people with incentives that work against the truth? If you do, why don't you trust what appears to be honest people who corroborate their key claims and whose claims get similar results in tens of millions of people today?

re ancient miracles

Well, I claim modern miracles mostly concentrated around prayer in the name of Jesus. See Keener's survey for instance:

https://www.gethisword.com/evidence.html#miracles

Far as ancient ones, I don't have to believe anything until I think know what honest people are saying. That's assessing the sources along with whether copies added those claims. You cited one work whose author didn't claim any miracles at all. His followers did centuries later. The others seem mythical in nature. So, I'd reject them on that basis.

re New Testament writers, including inconsistent stories

Far as New Testament writers, I'll give you two ways to assess them. The book, Cold Case Christianity by Wallace, was written to show how he came to Christ after his cold-case investigation proved the Gospels were authentic. In Ch 3 on Circumstantial Evidence, he says inconsistent stories are normal if the witnesses are honest. If they're consistent, it usually means they colluded.

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detec...

The second article covers reasons to think they're highly believable. Jesus seems to have picked the best witnesses partly by picking those who most would pass on for the job of starting an appealing religion. Amazing that God controlled everything from their genes to life circumstances to what people wrote about them to show us this. Great is His power.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-...

"Most Americans believe the bible should not be taken literally at 43% but inspired, 26% believe the stories are fables, and only 24% believe in biblical literalism."

What most Americans believe changes over time. Many times the beliefs are damaging. Besides, if the Bible was a story and stories do that, American would've changed for the better by now after they spent most of 2020 watching Netflix. That didn't happen. Whereas, the Bible has gotten predicted, positive results in its followers for 2,000 years. It must be true and powerful.

The empirical, most-scientific response would be to trust the Gospel over Americans' other beliefs and do what it says. Then, empiricism predicts you'd probably get the results that the rest of us did. Repent, put your faith in Christ, and see for yourself! :)