Evidence found for King Josiah

Why would they throw out stuff they found? That's unprofessional! I'd fire them. They must collect and study everything they find otherwise they should jusy quit and go home so someone else can do it.

The clay seal and stuff. It's a material/physical discovery that a smart and skilled archeologist cannot disregard but find out what time period it came from and from who. This was what was done and got directly connected to the King. Just like we found things that directly tie to King Tut.

I've been on many digs myself, and there is no doubt that there is a lot of "stuff" everywhere.

A nice one. Another pretty evidence that Bible is not lying. Old sources are always not very good at their story-telling.

We can aim with Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Thucydides, Ptolemy and many others to see that not all of what they've been talking about is true.
For example, Thucydides cheated on retelling the war document from Syracuse to ...(sorry, I don't remember what is destination of it); Plato didn't say true about Atlantis, and the same could be said about Herodotus whose texts had some fictions about Alexander the Great and many other.

Bible was a book of its times. Historical side of the book is not the best one, but should it be the one at all? The criticizing of it can't be taken as perfect without historical context. So, this mean that historical circumstances are needed to be taken into account carefully; and vice versa, we don't need to be so rigorous thinking that the Bible has to be perfectly verified.

Look, are you a sculptor, aren't you? If you are a sculptor, I don't understand, why do you use just descriptions, not interpretations...

Anyway, any piece of evidence that corresponds to what Bible says is showing us that the book's words is truth.

Imagine that I'd written some kind of a prophecy book. I described there some situations about "The Arktos Community", and among them I described that 'on June 21st, at 14:29, an Arktos member name Sculptor typed: "Bible was a book of its times. Historical side of the book is not the best one, but should it be the one at all? The criticizing of it can't be taken as perfect without historical context. So, this mean that historical circumstances are needed to be taken into account carefully; and vice versa, we don't need to be so rigorous thinking that the Bible has to be perfectly verified".'. And some members of Arktos noticed it and started to discuss - was my prophecy about it true or not? Few guys said that it was nothing, but a coincidence and I didn't fortune-tell anything; a minor part of it said that I did some prophecy, and the rest of members said that was nothing, but a circus: there were no prophecy, and no book...

Despite of any of their positions, we can say about any situations in Bible that either they took place, or not. But if some future exploring would show us that a part of that history were truth, we should say that Bible were truth about the described scenes. If 100% of the scenes would have taken its place in history, we should have said that Bible were right about all of the scenes. 

Obviously, we can't check whether or not Moses took the Ten Laws Tablets; we can't check the Resurrection making an experiment. But what we can do (check historical states of affairs) about Bible, we do.

Ok, but how would you differ one description of any situation from another one? There should be some historical criteria; what criteria is it?

My opinion on it:
I would say that if it would tell us that "X were in Y at Z time" (a), we should just check variables. And if we had some narrations similar to this: "The greatest of the great X wish to step in the sacred Y when the dark clouds and smoky fog were low at Z time" (b) - we would need to formalize all "b" to "a", and we would have no problems. 

Considering sentences like that "God had decided to punish X" we cannot check them, because there's no way to check it. But - any sentences aren't false just because God is mentioned there. This is not a reason to utilize them.

That's why I see no purposes to deny what Bible says. 

And - what I find the most strange thing - why do you always try to imply existential propositions from any texts? Bible doesn't prove itself it is true. One needs to check it believing to what it says; because believing to Bible is at least not denying of what it says.