Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[Shell B]

What do you consider as an unbiased source?  

Probably not the clearly biased sources you provided, but I will try to take each of them on the merit of their content, which, so far as I've read, contain statements like "some experts agree," which usually means, "the sources I cherry picked agree."

It seems to me, that archeology is constantly finding things which go a long with the Biblical story (and that many of the arguments against are just absence of evidence arguments with a misunderstanding of what expectations should be in ancient archeology).

Complete absence of evidence is a good argument. You can actually expect quite a lot from ancient archaeology. We have extraordinary evidence of events predating Jesus by thousands of years.

It seems that there are numerous examples where "experts" have claimed that the evidence doesn't match up, and entire people groups mentioned in the Bible did not exists, only to have to eat their words upon later discoveries. 

Examples?

The main issue that I am aware of, is the exodus, which revolves around some disagreements about dates.  Those holding to later dates, saying that their isn't evidence, and those who figure on earlier dates saying that there is support (along with Jericho that follows).  The other major disagreement with the exodus (even considering a earlier date) , is with the number of people.   And there are some reasonable explanations here as well. 

Such as?

And with the new testament because it is more recent, then we have better support for.  There are multiple accounts, hostile and third party corroboration, the history of the Church which followed.  I find that all this meets the historical method fairly well.

Like?

Here are a few links to some support for the Old Testament support.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...-evidence/

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-ar...the-bible/

Archeology and Ancient History are not an exact science.

Maybe not, but they're not a crap shoot by a long shot. Even before written history, we can piece together a shitload of history.

 

And when you look back, you can see trends in even the scholarly work, that move in favor of, and against the Bible.  I think we are moving back to a point where the popular expert opinion is against the Bible.  But when you look at this, it's not citing some new information which was discovered, or a pivotal point which has been reconsidered with new and better reasoning.  It's largely just the current trend in opinion and mood.  Which is why I always ask what are the facts, and what is the basis for the conclusion in this regard.

I don't care what's popular. I accept history that is supported by contemporary documents, geology and archaeological findings. Religious texts are notoriously bad stand-ins for actual history. Generally, I look at it like the Bible has some true history in it because writers writing about the world around them always include events that have actually happened to some degree. Even the presence of a toaster in a fictional story would tell someone a million years from now that the story was written after the advent of the toaster. You know what I mean? However, there are so many events in the Bible that could not have happened (the flood) that we can't treat it as non-fiction. Sure, there are a few toasters, but it's no textbook.