Many of the historical places and cities mentioned in the Bible have been discovered. Surely that means that the Bible is historically correct?
Christians often claim that as there have been so many places and cities discovered that are mentioned in the Bible, that their existence must prove that the Bible is historically accurate.
This is a logical fallacy as it's evidence by association. Did the Greek gods exist because Mount Olympus exists? Was the Cyclops real in the Iliad because Troy has been discovered? Does Spider-man exist because New York exists?
The logical fallacy becomes apparent when you use this same reasoning with any other piece of literature which refers to the supernatural. Even from a purely naturalistic point of view, one historically correct reference does not validate all other associated historical claims.
A good example of this would be the discovery of Jericho. When Jericho was initially discovered, Christian apologetics started using it's discovery as an example not just of the Bible's historical accuracy but also of God's power as the city's walls had been destroyed. This seemed to support the Bible's claim that God himself destroyed Jericho's walls. Later excavations have painted a different picture in the Jericho's walls had been destroyed at least 7 times by different invading armies. In addition, by the time that Joshua was supposed to have invaded Jericho (late 13th century BCE), the city was actually desolate after being invaded a century earlier.