Christian Doubt

Should the Bible get the benefit of the doubt? Many of the events that are described in the Bible have been confirmed by historic investigation. In places where it can be verified, such as times, places, and historical figures, the Bible has been shown to be trustworthy. Granted the Bible was not written to be a history textbook, but in many places in the Bible it can be seen that the author intends for the reader to understand the events described as historical (i.e. Acts).

Therefore, should the benefit of the doubt go to the Bible for things that cannot be verified? I think this can be justified for purely historical claims (i.e. reigns of specific leaders), however, the unverified will be less certain, and cannot carry as much weight. Where the problem regarding benefit of the doubt comes into play is when the unverified is something extraordinary such as miracles and the resurrection. There is a big difference between giving the benefit of the doubt to a purely historical claim verses a claim that indicates a rare or supernatural event.