What you seem to fail to appreciate is that the Bible isn't just a book that validates itself, it is a collection of books by over 40 different authors over a period of hundreds of years. In that massive body of work if there is a point you glean from it that point must be confirmed by another. At least one other. If, on the other hand, two passages contradict one another you have a problem. Either you have misinterpreted it or have discovered an anomaly.
What you fail to realize is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 book or 40 different ones by 40 different authors over a period of hundreds of years. Indeed, the fact that they were written over such a long timespan immediately provides a reason to doubt the historical accuracy of much of the content.
What matters is that they're all trying to (more or less) make the same supernatural claim. It doesn't matter if only one believer claims "god is real, and we know this is true because he told me so"; or 4000 of them. It's circular either way. The point you've apparently taken away is "Oh, they're saying that you can't prove a *single* book's claims using only that book!". This is of course, an absurd takeaway. The reason we're saying the bible can't prove the bible isn't to do with the number of books; it has to do with the claims and the lack of independent verification.
You can't prove Hogwarts exists because there's more than one Harry Potter book.
"But wait!" you might say, "they were all written by one author, and the bible by different ones!"
Doesn't matter. The argument stays the exact same if we include all the Harry Potter fan fiction. That's because the fan authors, like the biblical authors, do not represent independent sources. Think of another example; let's say there's a cult that claims that on October 1st, 2009, there was a giant comet seen in the sky, and that this comet was actually God racing across the sky. Now, let's say 10 different members of the cult write about this. Does this mean we have independent verification of the event in question? No. Indeed, there is absolutely no reason to believe it actually happened. Only when other sources that are completely unrelated to the cult start mentioning the comet in the sky can we say the account is at least partially verified. If ESA mentioned the comet showing up at that time, then that verifies the comet's existence, but it doesn't provide any evidence for the cult's interpretation that the comet was god
Typically, the skeptic will say something to the effect that an event hasn't taken place due to it not having been discovered in some field of science or history,
No, we simply say that it is absurd to say with such authority that it *has* happened even though there's absolutely no evidence for it; and especially because the only motivation for insisting an event has happened is because otherwise the validity of your personal beliefs is threatened.
Skeptics of the Bible often question the dating of accurate Bible chronology regarding Jesus' birth based upon the incorrect notion that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E.. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., page 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."
In 1764 an inscription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.
This is simply incorrect. The argument that there were two censuses has been refuted by Raymond E. Brown in The Birth of the Messiah (1977, pp.546-555) and in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Chronology". It is far more logical to assume that the authors were simply ignorant of the facts; as demonstrated by the conflicting accounts between Luke and Matthew about where Joseph and Mary lived. But no, rather than admit the authors made a mistake, you find yourself forced to adhere to already refuted arguments.
Incidentally, the Lapis Tiburtinus does NOT show that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice. It doesn't even fucking mention him. But this is the sort of trickery Christian apologetics routinely employ; simply fabricating evidence out of thin air. Here's what the Lapis Tiburtinus actually says:
.....KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF...
AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE...
FOR THIS HONOURED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS...
FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION...
OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA...
AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]...
There is absolutely no mention of Quirinius nor any way to link the inscription to him.
Science is different in that it changes according to new knowledge accumulated. That, of course, is a good thing, but from a theological perspective you can't expect a person who believes in the God of the Bible, who was there during the flood and who created everything to assume that the scientific process negates the super intelligent being that brought it all about and was there.
Of course I can expect that person to do so. To expect anything less of them is to assume they're fanatical idiots who can not adapt to new information. And even if it turns out that said assumption is correct; that's simply unacceptable.
Mankind's search for knowledge, whether theological or scientific, is imperfect and you can't deny that the monopoly on knowledge tends to lean towards a xenophobic desire to crush the competition.
There's no such thing as a monopoly on knowledge within science. One of the central pillars of the scientific method, peer review, makes it impossible to maintain a monopoly on knowledge.
