Being old doesn't make it untrue, less reliable or worse than other books.
That is true, but there lacks any reason to believe it's true, reliable or better.
It's not an either or situation. It is neither completely true nor completely false, same for its reliability. Again I refer you to Bart Ehrman for a scholarly assessment.
Finding a fossil is interesting but until it is studied and compared to other creatures, both living and dead, it is only a curiosity. Fossils were known for millennia but their real value wasn't appreciated until relatively recently. The Bible is the same.
The thing's been around and worshiped by people and studied endlessly for ages, I find it unlikely that it has any hidden value at this point. How is it reliable?
One fossil can tell you a lot about a organism, but many fossils can tell you much, much more. The same is true for the Bible, we're constantly finding additional scraps of scripture that add to the tapestry of the story.
There is now enough historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus. It meets, or exceeds, the requirements for historicity. Anyone who claims that there is no evidence for God, or that the Bible is a bunch of myths is being willfully ignorant.
I guess that I am willfully ignorant then. However, anyone who thinks that there is historical proof of Jesus is willfully delusional. I give the New Testament about as much credibility as the Book of Mormon. It constantly contradicts itself, depending upon the writer, for one thing. For another, it was cherry picked out of scores of other scriptures by the church, which has had a track record of self serving corruption that became so bad during the reformation that they started naming Borgia's as popes). For another, none of it was even claimed to have been written in Jesus' lifetime, and another, nobody even knows who wrote much of it (Revelations, for example...and my belief is that the writer of that one was insane).
