When debating believers about their religion, they will invariably try to drag you into a debate over details in the bible with vague assertions that there are secular documents which support the claims. There are not.
That locations and some of the people who are mentioned in the bible were real people for whom there is evidence that they existed, doesn’t mean that the stories in the bible are any more true than that Sex in the City took place in a real city and some of the people and events that Carrie and her cohorts met or participated in where real. But the main cast of Sex in the City are as a real as the bible’s characters.
There is no debating the veracity of the bible, because that’s arguing over details that are dependent on a premise that remains unproven.
It doesn’t matter what the particular claims of a religion are, when the validity of the deity the claims are dependent upon remains dubious
The universe is natural and conforms to consistent and predictable rules – there is nothing to indicate or hint that there is any more than what we already see.
So people who would assert supernatural claims, have yet to provide any evidence for their claims despite having had as you point out over 3000 years to do so – thus, the particular claims of any given religion, are red herrings to the actual argument.
Natural vs supernatural is what it comes down to.
If you want to beleive in the supernatural, then you open up a big can of worms because how then can you assert that there are no unicorns (invisible and pink or otherwise), vampires, ghosts, anything else that anyone can invent
How can you realistically draw a distinction between supernatural beings?