One stock objection to Bible history is that it's one-sided. We only have that "biased" version of events. For instance, we don't have Egyptians sources which record the Ten Plagues.
One of the ironic things about this objection is how trusting it is with regard to extrabiblical accounts. As if Scripture is biased, but Roman, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, or Egyptian accounts would be objective.
Let's take some comparisons. Several years ago, Hillary Clinton published her memoirs: Living HIstory. Dick Morris, long time confidant and advisor to the Clintons, published a counter version of events: Rewriting History.
Now, I admit that I haven't read either one. But it's safe to say that these two accounts present mutually unrecognizable versions of the same person. Yet they can't both be right.
Or consider the conflicting accounts of Bill Clinton by Sidney Blumenthal and Christopher Hitchens.
Likewise, take the Bush 43 administration. On the one hand, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all published memories of their time in office.
If, however, you compare that to NYT coverage of the Bush administration, these are mutually unrecognizable versions of the same administration. Or consider different versions of a police shooting.
What reason is there to think that Roman, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, or Egyptian accounts wouldn't be just as partisan, just as skewed–especially if this involves a humiliating defeat?
Moreover, look at how the liberal media reports on Christians? The blinding ignorance. Compare and contrast that with what we really know to be the case, from firsthand experience.