There is a lot here so I will take things one at a time.
First, you have not triggered me in any way. If you had, I would have resorted to stereotypes similar to ‘Christians are biased’. ‘Christians always interpret the evidence to suit their beliefs’ etc. These statements are not evidence, they are stereotypes, name calling, words which presume Christians are unable or unwilling to deal with facts.
At no point in time in this discourse, have you provided evidence that archaeology, the source of evidence for historicity of Saul, David, or Solomon cited by notable historians who have a reputation to protect, as such are not likely to misrepresent the facts, does not exist. Archaeological evidence is fact. The extent to which different historians are willing to lean on the evidence, subjective interpretation.
Credible archaeological evidence validated by archaeologists and historians is fact. Interpretation of the facts, subjective.
We can state without any iota of doubt that whereas I the Christian have provided evidence in this discussion, you have not. Wikipedia cannot be source of evidence for a matter that is within purview of academic and professional archaeologists or historians.
In so far as Donald Trump is concerned, Christians are called by Jesus Christ to be pragmatic. If a man who says he is a Christian happens to be the best candidate available, we vote for him, pray for him, celebrate him as President, cringe when he messes up, but never ever give up on him. What exactly is the good alternative to not giving up on your country’s President?
Donald Trump has spent his time getting things done. If we had Hillary, we would all still be bathing in the glow of the first female President of the United States. Do I agree with all of Donald Trump’s tactics or behavior. Naturally not. Without his belligerence, however, and willingness to honor China as a superpower, North and South Korea would not now be talking about peace. We all would be wondering just how America would be able to tackle Iran and North Korea at the same time.
With respect to supposed dichotomy between Christianity and science, just in case you are not aware, Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, so was Marie Curie who won two Noble prizes, so was Francis Bacon, so also were Meric Casaubon, Joseph Glanvill, Robert Boyle etc. all some of the most notable scientists of all time. If you are aware, Robert Boyle is tagged Father of Chemistry, Father of an entire division of science. He was a practicing Christian. Not hidden, in plain view. So were all of the other persons I have mentioned. If you take the time to study history, you will find most of the advancements of science have been produced by people who were proudly Christian.
Based on the evidence, any dissociation of Christianity from science is based on folklore, not hard evidence.
Let me make clear here that:
just because some historians and archaeologists choose not to lean hard on the available archaeological evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist.
In so far as respectful discourse is concerned, it is not respectful to state that a person who is presenting facts is presenting facts only so he can support his or her emotions. If the facts support my views, I cannot at the same time be acting on my emotions. Disparagement of facts as emotions is not respectful.
Again, unless you can produce an archaeologist or historian who claims archaeological evidence in support existence of Saul, David, Solomon is not credible, all you have presented in this discussion is your opinion, not facts.
People who are anti Bible seem to think Christians just believe. For many Christians, belief in the Bible is rooted in evidence in support of historicity and credibility of the Bible.