Sign into an existing account

Are you being facetious? What you're saying is equivalent to saying "it was real in my mind".

Solid topic, thanks Lost_In_The_Thinking. Your point is good too. While the curvature of the earth can be readily retested and verified, history is a soft-science with a higher degree of uncertainty. Our standard of evidence for historical figures would still point toward the confirmed existence of many Biblical characters (if not all). But the existence of a person is one thing, confirming the accounts of what they do is a different thing.

Even if a collection of materials pointed towards supporting a hypothesis, there would still be room for counter-theories.

Thomas Aquinas' approach was essentially to propose that we should evaluate any theory for internal consistency (discarding the inconsistent) and from the remaining theories, feel out which one resonates the most with us.

If we have multiple competing theories that equally 'feel right', we can either take the reductionist perspective to reject all until a winner takes priority, or to take the pluralistic perspective and hold multiple perspectives as distinct schools of thought that are essentially different but equally valid epistemological tools for approaching/exploring reality. Some tools will offer more utility than others, which can sometimes inform our preference.

If that is our approach, and if we come to the conclusion that God exists and that the Biblical version of God is faithful to the version of God we believe to be true, that may drive our faith in the surrounding materials.

In a sense, this is also how scientific theories are held. From what we can readily test, if a theory is consistent with those observations we tend to give more clout to that theory and its predictive power. That predictive power may be for past, present, or future events/details.

So for the Bible, if our conclusions about what the perfect being would be aligns with the descriptions in the Bible, that tends to lend to the Bible's clout in speaking to other topics, including Biblical characters other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There are certain things history as a science can't weigh. In the same way that empirical science can't put God in a test-tube, the method of history verification doesn't weigh miracles, only that something was observed/experienced (it scrutinizes witness accounts for fabrications / manipulations). Just because a tool does not measure something does not mean that thing doesn't exist.

To offer a TL;DR summary: feel free to test the Bible using the same standard of evidence that is granted to all other ancient history; see what you get.

seeing is believing. there is no proving any of this shit unless youve seent it.