"The rest of us remain mentally-sound skeptics that need better evidence than circular reasoning around the Bible."

Far from skeptics, they believe most things because some authority told them to. I see no evidence that any of you follow the scientific method with skeptical replication and peer review of most claims. Some of you definitely do for some claims, esp professional researchers. If it doesn't use the scientific method, then believing it as if it's probably or definitely true is a faith-based or emotional belief, not science. Christian beliefs are a mix of experiential, evidentiary, faith, and empirical (scientific method).

Why do many atheists act as if all their key beliefs were obtained by empirical investigation when they in fact mostly put faith in people they don't know? Why do they hold us to a standard they don't follow? In my case, I'm happy to discuss any with the caveat that my justification will use whatever is appropriate for that type of belief (eg experiential vs empirical claims).

"There are parts of the Bible that are simply wrong, many of which are points I've already raised and you've ignored."

You've not also not raised any scientific or historical claims. You've only asserted some things are true (argument from authority). I've responded to a few claims. I'm happy to elaborate on the points you asked about. Quick recap of just those, though.

I gave you an evidence page that the Bible is God's Word. The types and number of evidence surpass most claims I see in the daily news. My own belief is based on that evidence (evidentiary), witnessing God act on the world in ways that require divine attributes (empirical), the inner witness caused by the Spirit's activity when hearing the Gospel, both have tons of independent corroboration (replication), how specific sins/obedience produces Bible-predicted results in real world (evidentiary/empirical).

That's quite a combo. Acting on it despite remaining uncertainty is Christian faith. Like any good model, it kept producing good results, had accurate predictions about people, and predictions about trends in the world. That strengthens my faith and rational belief in God's Word. Now your question: What about the unverifiable claims in the Bible?

They're like how atheists believe many claims in history and science without personally investigating or replicating them. They trust the reliability of the source. Then, put faith in their claims, esp non-critical ones. Likewise, we put faith in the Bible's claims due to our trust in the Bible itself. Many of the Bible's claims that intellectuals opposed were later shown to be true externally to the Bible. Other times, using the historical-grammatical method while treating conflicting accounts like other eyewitness testimony works fine with little or no mental gymnastics. (See Cold Case Christianity by Wallace, a homicide detective, for how he evaluated the eyewitness statements.)

re scientific claims

You also brought up "the age of the Earth, the origins of mankind, geocentrism, global flooding, etcetra." Geocentrism isn't in the Bible. Flooding fits the fossil record well but empirically there's multiple possibilities. Whereas, I showed mainstream age of the Earth used many faith-based premises. The biggest is that one can linearly roll back the current, observed behavior of geological structures for millions to billions of years. Never justified in the first place, that was disproven by secular science in geology (catastrophism), data science (non-linear models), and complexity theory (eg phase transitions + emergent behavior). That premise is highly unjustifiable.

Darwin's theory had specific predictions of gradual emergence of species, piles of transitional forms, more streaming than hierarchical in style, and more kinds of animals forming today with just as much differentiation. The actual, fossil record and animals in captivity both refute every one of those predictions. Instead, the fossil record shows creatures appearing out of nowhere in large number (eg Cambrian Explosion). Combined with catastrophism, the mass die-offs might have happened to existing creatures in a short time or over a long period of time.

Empiricism and logic each require you discard a theory immediately when its premises fail like that. Then, build a new theory on real-world observations. Why didn't scientists do either? If they don't, is it still science or more like religious dogma?

The other problem is that most of you don't know these things. Those making curriculums and "science" news didn't tell you that canyons have formed in 3 days, that fossils formed in 24 hours, and that oil could form in hundreds to a few thousand years. In each case, that lots of water and pressure was all it took with some caused by observed floods. If you knew that, you'd have rejected mainstream theories to explore alternatives where our biosphere developed quickly. Alternatively, you'd humbly say you have no idea how young or old the Earth is which is also scientifically valid.

About the rapid development of geological features and fully-formed creatures in fossil record, did you know about these things before today? Did you know mainstream theories absolutely require these things to be impossible? Or did you just learn that things which supposedly take a hundred thousand to millions of years could happen in a time span of 24 hours to a few books of the Bible?

Either way, what do you now think about mainstream science continuing to push age of the Earth and origin of life theories whose premises were disproven by real-world observations?