Many scholars have attempted to prove or disprove the historical validity of the Bible.  Over the course of many years, people have discovered writings, artifacts, and other empirical evidence to support their theories.  What I would be more concerned with is not what is in the Bible but rather what is not in the Bible.  Because, the Bible was written during a specific period of time and within a specific region of the world, and we would assume that it would contain many current facts along with other historical data.  One would also assume that if the Bible was written by prophets of god (where god’s word would come directly through them onto paper) that it would also contain historical information not known to anyone else in that specific region and time.  For example, the story of Noah and his ark –  Noah and his family were chosen by god to save themselves and “all” of god’s creatures (animals other than humans) from a world devastating flood.  Or another example of how god created humans, as Adam (man first) and Eve (woman second).  So, the Bible helps us understand the times in which the Bible was written and also the times before the Bible was written (missing link between the past and the present).  On the other hand, we also understand that the Bible doesn’t explain everything.  It mainly describes anecdotes that help shape moral and civil code.  In this regard, one must assume that god felt it was only necessary to explain this moral and civil code, and not other codes, such as science.  {this is where the  “don’t play god” “science is evil” arguments must come from}  Science is to some religious people  god’s secret and magic.  Science, therefore, must contain the secrets to god and its universe – how we were created, what is the universe, what is beyond the universe, etc.  Science conflicts with religion in this regard – to study and practice science would be disrespectful to god (creation vs evolution debate). Also, let’s look at the Bible’s depiction of historical events – it would be natural to think that big events in history would somehow be recorded in the Bible.  But, most events occurring in the Bible are of the surrounding areas of the Middle East.  Little to no mention of Mid-South Africa, Europe, Asia, India, or Americas.  Thus, probably the reason why so many religious people consider the areas in the Middle East to be sacred, as god only mentions them and no one where else.  But, yet again, the Bible is a moral and civil book, not a history book.  If there is no mention of something in the Bible, does it mean that it didn’t exist?  Clearly not. But, wouldn’t there be some sort of mention of other large things, like even Dinosaurs. If we consider everything in the bible to be factual, then we would know that god made humans as they are today – no evolution.  Therefore, humans of today would’ve encountered dinosaurs of yesterday.  Wouldn’t there be an anecdote, a fable,  a written record of some sort to indicate these large creatures?  But, would there be a story of some sort that would explain how the dinosaurs disappeared from the Earth – yes – Noah’s Ark.  Noah’s Ark has been used (by many religious scholars) to explain many different scientific findings and through those findings it has “legitimatized” the idea of the Ark.  Through the large floods of when Noah’s Ark occurred, some animals that were left behind drowned and were subsequently covered in layers of mud – thus creating fossils.  But, the bible specifically states that Noah needed to save two of every animal on earth, including himself and his family.  First issue being that he would need to round up 2 of every species of animal on earth.  Second, he would need to place these pairs of animals on a boat.  Third, he would need to keep the “wild” animals from killing each other.  Fourth, he would need to have the world’s animal population continue with only 2 of each animal species (even considering incest as the population increases). And lastly these species would need to move from Noah’s specific region of the world to other parts of the world, even across oceans.  And as the conditions continue to add up, the more ridiculous it becomes.  Not to mention, that inbreeding has a high still birth rate; or that there would be some animals who couldn’t become pregnant at all; or others that get sick on the boat and die before they can reproduce….  Again, ridiculous.  And for the religious person, the number one explanation for the ridiculousness of the Ark’s idea is a variable of the religious answer, “God’s will made it so”.  There is no proof needed, there is no data needed, nothing…  If there is no empirical data and/or evidence to support Noah’s Ark, then one would have to assume that it’s some kind of mythological story (or metaphor) to illustrate some sort of religious concept or purpose.  All of this brings me to the conclusion of reasoning, logic, and common sense don’t belong with faith (or I should call it “blind” faith)…