This is rather a worry:
THE British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archeology - proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.
Excuse me, what? A clay tablet has been found which names a figure mentioned in the Old Testament from five centuries before the-person-who-may-have-existed-called-Christ. Now the report doesn't even make it clear that the figure is identifiably the same as that mentioned in the Old Testament, or just the same name (and, lets to be clear on this, "Jesus" was such a common name in old Jerusalem that tombs containing a Jesus are ten-a-penny), plus the particular incident mentioned in the Old Testament was a fairly ordinary war, from the looks of things.
At what point did someone say "Hey look! We have one figure confirmed from another historical source! That must mean that the whole book is correct, including the bits of divine intervention and biblical hellfire and the Ark of the Covenant killing people!"
Here's a radical suggestion: It's possible for a document to be partly historical and partly complete fabricated lying-through-your-ceremonial-hat.