Do they know??

This is the laws of logic, and even St. Thomas Aquinas would approve. If you can use internal inconsistencies to disprove the logic of a text, you don't need to bring in an outside source.

Also, you're wearing Christian goggles here. The people who originally wrote the Bible have been disputing the text for some 3000 years.

you're right it's just way funnier if you don't think about it

I'm a thinky person, and I come from a tradition where reading the text closely counts. This looks like FDR's non-existent time machine all over again.

well people will always be disputing if the texts are divinely inspired or not, but they haven't been disproven yet

Burden-of-proof moment: Actually, it hasn't been proven yet that the Bible is divinely inspired, so anyone who wants to claim that needs to bring their strongest logic boots and start climbing.

And yes, Jesus said (according to the account of the gospels, ie things written at least 30 years after his death), "Blessed are those who have not seen, and have yet believed." (John 20:29), and “"For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” (Mark 10:14-15), but he comes out of the tradition of Midrashing scripture, and Paul caps this notion of childlike faith with "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me." (Corinthians 13:11)

It doesn't exist in proof you could lab test or something, but when there's very old prophecy being fulfilled, eyewitness accounts to Jesus's miracles, and no archaeological discoveries that disprove the Bible, somethings up

There are also no archaeological discoveries that disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And your mileage on the prophecy being fulfilled both depends on you a) accepting those accounts of miracles and b) reading the prophecy with a Christian lens, both putting the cart of belief before the horse of evidence.

I realize that your belief system practically demands that you reject logic in these ways, but then you should say, "I believe because I choose to believe and have been taught to believe, not because it is demonstrably true."

That's fine; that's how people have believed in gods, spirits, Flying Spaghetti Monsters since the dawn of time. I also choose to believe in G-d without evidence, but I don't lie to myself about it being logical or objectively true.

The bible has the most historical lineups of any book
I belive in Jesus the same way I believe in Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, or Queen Elizabeth

Your first statement ignores the whole field of history. The bible has a lot of what might be called historical legend, but as a history text it's about as accurate as the Iliad.

I'll grant you that those people existed, and it's fine to believe in their historical existence. I hope you aren't viewing any as your personal savior.

Yes Jesus is my savior I owe everything to 😎
You use logic and rationalization to know God exists, then you connect him to the God of the Bible

Only by viewing the Bible as a collection of legends. Could one honestly read the text literally and worship the God of the Book of Job?

Yeah, if you know how perfect god is, how imperfect we are, shat we deserve... and know about his forgiveness

how about we all believe our own thing 😃