1.6% of the North American population says that the Bible can’t be trusted in what it says.
Example: Atheists used to say that any and all of the kings mentioned in the bible were non historic. They denied any part of 1st and 2nd King as being historically accurate.
Why would they make such a statement? Well, according to atheists, if any historical document has been included into the Bible it should automatically be considered a lie or legend or myth.
Then at Tel Dan in upper Galilee in Northern Israel inscriptions on basalt stone were uncovered. They were part of the paving near the entrance of the outer gate of the ancient city of Dan. This Aramean victory stela could well have been destroyed by the Jews (2 Kings 15.29 2. 1 Kings 22.10 3. 1 Kings 15.16-20) and its fragments used in the construction of the area surrounding the entrance gate to the city.
At any rate, the inscription was the first reference found outside the Bible to 'The House of David.' The conquests recorded on the stones are related to the events written in the first book of Kings, where Asa, king of Judah, bribed king Ben- hadad to go to war with Baasha king of Israel 1 Kings 15v16-20] When Israel recaptured the city of Dan, after Ahab king of Israel's defeat by Ben-Hadad as described in 1 Kings 20. Since then, all of the Kings listed in the Bible have been confirmed as historical figures by extra Biblical inscriptions.
Will this and several dozen similar examples put an end to these people’s claim that the Bible can’t be trusted? Of course not. This 1.6% of the population still maintains their implausible position that what the Bible says cannot be trusted, not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. They must do this or their world-view will collapse.
This is what these people are like. It’s how they think.