A saying I'm particularly fond of is "never mock a man for mispronouncing a word, because it means he learned it by reading." Reading, historically, has always been a sign of an education, and reading of your own free will has been a mark of diligence. It's good to read, or so our culture has historically believed. Even reading fictional novels, like Oliver Twist, Moby Dick, or Harry Potter, is generally seen as a good thing.
But there is a book that has such a poor reputation in our culture that its mere existence tarnishes the image of books whenever it is mentioned. "Just because a book says it doesn't mean it's true", cry the atheists, having been presented with far greater arguments than "the Bible says it, so it's true". "You believe it because a book says it", they laugh, knowing full well 90% of everything they've ever known, they learned from something resembling a book. My favorite one is the Evolutionist who kept sending me the same meme over and over again: "Creationism Because it's easier to read one book than a bunch of hard ones."
But if an atheist is wise and diligent enough, he might go to this wonderful place called a "library". Libraries are architectural structures in which books are typically stored. They lend, and occasionally sell these books, and people can often be found within their walls flipping through many pages. Before the dark days in which smart phone screens eclipsed the sun and made us all blind to the fact we are tied to a physical reality, libraries were a primary means of research for many people, be they casually interested in a subject, or aiming to become full time scholars.
Of course, libraries stock many books on many topics. The bigger the library, the greater the range. But often, they contain things like history books. If you want to know about Henry VIII, Christopher Columbus, Julius Caesar, all of these people can be found in various books you can find in the local library.
And people just believe them! You open a history book, you see it says Henry VIII had 6 wives throughout his life, and boom, that's a fact you will know for your entire life, you won't even bother questioning it, and if you so much as see someone struggle to recite this fact on a quiz show, you laugh at them for being idiots. "Everyone knows that!", you scoff.
But here's a question: How does anyone know that? Did some scientist come across a headless female skeleton, and decide "oh, her name must have been Anne Boleyn, and you know, I bet she was beheaded in 1536 because Henry VIII accused her of cheating on him"? Of course not! Everything we know about historical figures comes primarily from early, written sources. Sources most people don't care to actually read, and so books are written by the few people with the stamina to study them so that we, too, can know the truth.
Of course, there is one flaw in this. Evidence decays. We don't have access to every single historical source ever written. Thus, sources can be divided into primary, secondary, tertiary etc. The closer a source is to the events described, the more reliable it is assumed to be.
When you read a standard history book, you're reading a summary of all these sources. You might have a few snippets of historical sources scattered throughout, but the chances are you're reading what someone who may even still be alive today says about people who died a long time before they were even born. The aforementioned Henry VIII died in 1547, meaning in order to have direct experience with him, a modern author would have to be more than 476 years old.
But when you read the Bible, what you are actually reading is a primary source! Of course, Christians know this by default. It is literally inspired by God, and so it is infallible. But God didn't write it with His own pen. Instead, He selected human authors. Prophets. Scribes. Apostles. Witnesses.
With a few obvious exceptions (Adam, for example, did not write Genesis 1-5), the vast majority of the events described in the Bible were written by those who either saw the events take place, or people who lived at the same time and had direct access to living witnesses. This makes the Bible, particularly the New Testament, the kind of historical source scholars themselves would rely on in order to write history books equivalent to the ones we find in local libraries. In other words, even by secular standards, the Bible is more solid, more reliable, than the books we all rely on for our knowledge about history. From Horrible Histories to Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bible is more reliable than any other historical source, because when you read the Bible, you're getting the whole story straight from the horse's mouth. On top of its proximity to the events, the Bible also has the added benefit of being a collection of multiple books. In other words, it's not just one primary source, it's several of them.
Furthermore, beyond all imagination, the Bible is a very durable source. We have many copies of Scripture, demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, that it is the same today as it was the first time God's enemies tried to wipe it out. One could point to this as strong evidence that God has been protecting it, but really, it shows three things.
First, it tells us that even though there was plenty of opportunity for Christianity to be called out in some way if it was truly false, it never actually was. If Jesus never existed, the culture could easily have squashed the religion they so hated by scoffing "who is this Jesus guy? That never happened!" But they didn't. Or they could prove He stayed dead by finding His body. But it never resurfaced. Or they could have just denied Jesus was anything short of a trouble maker, or a con artist. Instead, they accused Him of consorting with devils.
Second, it tells us there was no legendary embellishment. Or at least, it shows us where that embellishment was. Over time, many things were "added" to the Christian faith. But not by the Bible. Pseudepigraphal and Apocryphal writings did eventually come into being, and whole heretical groups rose, bringing with them all sorts of strange narratives. But these are clear additions brought in over time, and aren't even consistent with what we find in Scripture, whereas the different Scriptures are all consistent with each other.
Third, it tells us just how confident the authors were. Liars make poor martyrs. When people lie, they typically do so in an attempt to gain something. Admiration, power, status, resources, something that they would want. When a lie ceases to be profitable, they reverse course. To be clear, anyone can die for a lie, but who would be willing to die for what they know is a lie?
It is a gross oversimplification to say Christians rely too heavily on a book, but it is positively asinine to deny the value of the book upon which we rely. Atheists don't mock it because it's bad to read, for they will uncritically accept anything they read in their preferred books. Nor do they scoff at it because it is, in some way, unreliable, as even ignoring the divine inspiration aspect of it, it is still a primary source, so reliable that it can be used as a guide to archaeology, and a judge of other historical documents. Those who scoff at "the book" should re-discover the antiquated virtues of due diligence, as a thorough study of Scripture will reveal that it is, indeed, the word of God, in which are found the words leading to eternal life.