A popular argument from the cynic unbeliever often revolves around the supposed historical inaccuracy of the Bible. But is this a fair argument, or even one with any basis of fact?
Over the years many have taken to challenging the Bible and its historical inaccuracy. One such individual was 19th century scholar, Sir william Ramsay. After physically exploring the actual Bible lands with a Bible in hand this is what he had to say. “The more I have studied the narrative of the Act, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand.I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here (referring to the Book of Acts; Revraney). You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutinity and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice.” Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint).
Twentieth Century archaeologist Nelson Glueck says the following, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Socres of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”  Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev ;New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy.
For the discerning mind and soul doubting the Bible simply because it seems unbelievable or even worse becasue it is an inconvenient truth is not an acceptable approach.