You previously stated a lot of things that weren't true. The bible is diluted, everyone who doesn't see it as fact and real scriptures of a god, can see that. I can post tons and tons of evidence, but I see no point. It's YOUR faith that you're holding to these books, not me. I'm only making it a point of discussion because of how much it poisons society.
Okay. You have made a claim, I've asked you to back-up your claim: you are unable to do so. Don't come in with excuses.
Themoose gave an interesting link, but one riddled with problems in the arguments. Take the Exodus of Egypt - according to liberal/secular/non-religious thinking the exodus took place in 1250BC, and only from the time of Solomon on is reliable history in the Bible. The history of the Hebrews or the Israelites before Solomon is contested to a far greater degree than after. But as I mentioned before, historians aren't exactly known for their traits in agreeing with each other anyway.
The antediluvian period and the patriarchal age are widely disbelieved by atheists and other secular thinkers.
It used to be the case that Atheists would claim that Pontius Pilate did not exist, that the NT history was completely wrong. It wasn't until 1961 when a limestone tablet with a dedication to Tiberius Caesar which specifically mentioned Pilate that Atheists were forced to admit that Pilate did in fact exist.
Sir William Ramsay, a Scottish archaeologist, set out to investigate the history in the book of Acts. As I have repeatedly invited everyone here to also try and prove. In 1881 he travelled to Greece and Turkey, and from that point on his entire academic career focused on the history of the Early Church. It was Ramsay who concluded this:
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident
Of course we (Christians) believe in Evidence. It is utterly ridiculous for you to claim otherwise. There is a mountain of archaeological proof for various events in the Bible stretching from the Antediluvian period to now.
Let me conclude with this. If the patriarchal age is a mythical age then the dates given by the Biblical timeline would be wrong and the secular timeline would be correct, right? The Exodus happened "according to who you believe" sometime between 1,250 - 1,350BC. Note that secular historians still widely acknowledge the Exodus as an event, just dismiss the "details" given in the Bible and claim that it is merely a mythical telling of the event. The Merneptah stele proves Israel was in Canaan (the time of Judges) in 1210BC. This along with the other evidence proves that later dates for the Exodus are incorrect. The "evidence" cited for believing later dates is entirely circumstantial, anyone can see that, therefore the evidence still proves that the Biblical history is correct.