You know, reading some of the responses gives us a good cross-section of how people feel about the Bible. It truly seems a personal thing based upon how involved each are with the Bible. I can appreciate that. And I can even appreciate some doubt because of all the consistent anti-Biblical stuff out there and all the Bible-bashing going on. But at the same time, positioning myself as an aggressive pro-Biblicalist, when I've extensively gotten involved with the Bible and research connected to it, it has increased my faith. So I'm thankful for that. I'm in a position to be more confident that the Bible is accurate and true. But for those with the casual approach, I can also see why they come to the conclusions that they do, simply based upon what they have been fed or exposed to. It's so fundamental sometimes. If someone has misrepretend the Bible's timeline, for instance, and then find conflict with archaeology, then of course, you have reason to doubt the Bible is true. I mean, look at Israel Finkelstein. He's an archaelogist and to the best of his research and ability he absolutely believes during the period most are dating David and Solomon that that land was simply not a great state. He clearly has a basis to believe that say, the Philistine pottery period would have extended "well into the 10th century BCE." Thus he just can't accept the Bible's current dating for David and Solomon, he presumes they were mythical. Even so, he has lots of evidence of what the Bible describes as the buildings of Solomon and acknowledges that Israel was a major centralized state later on during the period of Omri. So of course, he doubts the Bible. But, note that there is a difference between not finding a single great building or palace versus simply finding them at a later time! As a result, if you effective move the timeline for David and Solomon down, then the archaeology not only fits perfectly but you have a confirmation of the palaces Solomon built and the great empire that existed as the Bible describes during Solomon's period. Thus the only thing archaeologist Finkelstein is missing is the correct timeline. The Bible's timeline dates Solomon 54-60 years later than secular history does, which we know was revised. So here is this great archaeologists whose interpretations as to whether the postexilic Bible writers revised their records or not is entirely based upon whether or not he can confirm there were no major revisions by the Greeks to their timeline during the Classical Period; which, of course, he cannot since we have evidence that they did. So how good is his argument? It's not at all about the archaeology at all, but the timeline! But if you're listening to him in either of his books (i.e. "The Bible Unearthed," "David and Solomon") it seems he is an honest archaeologist drawing logical conclusions to the facts. In fact, the only problem that exists in his arguments is that he does not use the accurate Biblical dating for David and Solomon, he uses the secular dating, which is flawed. But how would a novice know that? They wouldn't.
The Biblicalist, however, that understands the chronology or even simply acknowledges the various Biblical chronologies to at least compare with the archaeologal evidence, will come out with a different concept of the Bible's accuracy.
So whether you believe the Bible is true or not, is highly dependent upon what someone truly knows or how much research they have done on both sides of the argument. Those who tend to have more faith in the Bible have done more of the hardcore research. Those who have less faith in the Bible have not checked out all the facts and have been perhaps influenced by scholarly theories.
So all I can say is, I definitely believe the Bible is true and I'm glad I did the research so that I have my own secular evidence that supports my own chronology and own Bible history, regardless of whether others agree with me or not. It's nice to have those things supporting you if you want to believe the Bible. It's very nice and comfortable place to be in.