If, in a biblical story, the biblical writer appears to contradict the physical evidence as revealed by archaeology, then, in my humble opinion, one should tend to believe the physical evidence—the discoveries of the archaeologists—not the biblical writer.
Because physical evidence tends to be more reliable than personal testimony and hearsay.
Just as you wouldn’t convict a man of murder who was tagged by an eyewitness as having done it if the DNA evidence did not also finger him, so you shouldn’t believe, for example, that the children of Israel, in their puported millions, wandered for 40 years in the desert wilderness of Sinai 3,200 years ago, if the archaeology says this never happened.
And the archaeology says it never happened. So there’s really no good reason to believe it.
That was easy, wasn’t it?
Can the sort of straightforward critical thinking that I just engaged in above resolve, for all reasonable people, what is essentially a religious matter?
Or am I missing something in my argument—an unstated premise or axiom that changes the way that such a matter should be framed and reasoned about?