Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Blee]

Blee, what archeological evidence have you that supports the bible being accurate?

If the bible was historically accurate, I would be even more suspicious of its writings, as preservation of and faithfulness to past events wasn't a widely utilized concept in the purported times. It's inaccuracy is more consistent with what you'd expect from a document or documents meant to manipulate large masses to act under a unified cause, rather than merely report on recent history without a hint of motive.

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls give Biblical accounts any weight?
Do references to the House of David (i.e., Tel Dan Stele) verify the Biblical stories of David?
Do findings like the Nabonidus Chronicle verify historical accounts in Daniel and so forth?
I'll just say that they may not be DIRECT archaeological findings that explicitly prove certain events (a finding like this would be massive), but would the accuracy of the Bible with these other findings give it some weight towards it being a truthful account? Again, at this stage we can be skeptics and just say there is not enough evidence which is perfectly fair.

However, don't these findings give the Biblical accounts some sort of verification?

You say that preserving writing wasn't a widely used concept back in their times, neither was the idea of monotheism. The Israelites lived the Bible, in a sense, so its probably likely that things were transmitted through oral tradition. However, it is likely that important events such as references to their laws, kings and wars were recorded possibly as a trophy or reminder for following generations (i.e., Deuteronomy, 1 2 Kings, Judges etc. etc.)

You say the Bible is written as if it were used to manipulate the masses. How were these masses manipulated, and by whom, and for what reason? Whoever receives the most benefit perhaps? Or maybe by God?

You refer to its inaccuracy, can you provide a couple? Could the inaccuracies in fact just be human error, as opposed to malignant motive?