This question was prompted by someone posting to the soc.religion.mormon newsgroup who claimed that there was just a ton of historical evidence for the Bible, and therefore everything the Bible says is true.

That claim is just false-- for most of the Biblical stories, there is very little if any historical evidence. I believe the Bible just the same.

A web site I like is Jeff Lindsay's Book of Mormon FAQ, which can be found at:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml

I heartily recommend Jeff's site, it is very well written, and (especially if you look at some of the non-Mormon info) very humorous as well.

Jeff answers the following question:

"Why is there lots of archaeological evidence for the Bible but little for the Book of Mormon?"

To quote Jeff, "In [the Bible] is not a trace of evidence for the story of the Exodus. Hundreds of thousands of Hebrews wandering through the Sinai peninsula should have left plenty of traces, but to date, there is no clear evidence (apart from the Bible) that they were ever there. There is no non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Moses or for Joseph, who was one of the great rulers in Egypt. There is no solid evidence for the existence of any of the great Patriarchs of the Bible, apart from sacred records. Critics can "safely" claim that these Biblical stories were created long after the alleged events they record. Likewise, most scientists will say that there is no credible evidence for the story of Noah's flood, for the Garden of Eden, or for the six-day creation."

He quotes Michael Balter's "Baedeker's Guide, or Just Plain 'Trouble'?" in Science, vol. 287, Jan. 7, 2000, pp. 29-30: "There is no other direct evidence [besides the Bible itself] that this great king [Solomon] ever lived."

Jeff states: "...evidence for the existence of King David was found in 1993, when an inscription was unearthed in northern Israel mentioning the "House of David." It is amazing that the very existence of the Bible's most famous and influential king would have been a matter of debate until 1993."

Anyway, you get the point. A *lot* of the Bible is totally unsupported by historians and archaeologists, and still more was unsupported until just recently. That's not necessarily a reason to disbelieve the Bible, though.

To bring a Mormon flavor into the subject, a lot of the Book of Mormon is similarly unsupported by historians and archaeologists (although some of it is-- you may want to check out Jeff's answer to the question: "Does the Book of Mormon have the expected level of historical confirmation for true scripture?", located at the already mentioned web site, as well as Jeff's Book of Mormon Evidences page, located here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml). However, that's not necessarily a reason to disbelieve it. In both cases (Bible and Book of Mormon), external verifications have *very little* to do with why I believe. Internal promptings of the Holy Spirit have *a great deal* to do with it.