Bible references existence of other gods including many magical creatures beings. If you are christian and believe the bible you are also acknowledging the existence of other gods.
My point was IF Harry Potter exists then so does the magical universe. I can make a long list of (religious) books that were intended to be true that also contain magic. The intent of the author is trivial to their authenticity. The intent of the author can be to lie or be mistaken. What if Harry Potter author intended it to be truth will that automatically make it true? No thats absurd so your logic doesn't hold.
Everything in the bible must be true otherwise its not a word of god. The standard for fallible humans is not the same for supposedly perfect and all powerful being. So yea you do unfortunately.
Also you are confusing history that we know as exactly how it happened. Hate to break it to you but there are many historians who don't agree with everything and its constantly revised, the history books are constantly changed because people lie or discover mistakes or new information. So if you believe history 100% exactly how you've been told then I have a bridge for sale.
You can argue that some things in the bible are true and prove that they were in fact true or at least possible i might not disagree but a few non magical mundane places or events don't validate all the magical ones.
By the same token I can dig into every religious/holy book and find small crumbs of truth that doesn't make them all true unfortunately.
You're conflating two different questions: whether a document contains supernatural claims and whether those claims are true.
I never said an author's intention makes a document true. I said it tells us what kind of claim they're making. Harry Potter is presented as fiction. The New Testament is presented as history. Those are different genres, and historians approach them differently. Whether the historical claims are correct is a separate question.
You're also creating a false dilemma by saying that if one part of the Bible is debated, then the whole thing must be false. Historians don't treat any ancient source that way. They evaluate claims individually. For example, historians don't discard everything written by Herodotus because some of his reports are legendary. Likewise, historians don't accept every claim in any ancient source uncritically. They weigh each claim against the available evidence.
You also said that if God inspired Scripture, then every claim must be true. That's a theological claim, not a historical one. Whether Scripture is inspired is precisely one of the questions under discussion. You can't assume it is false as a premise and then conclude it isn't inspired—that's circular.
Finally, I've never argued that "because some biblical places and events are historical, therefore every miracle happened." I've repeatedly said that's not my argument. My argument is that the historical reliability of a source is one factor in assessing its claims. It doesn't automatically prove every claim, but neither does the presence of miracles automatically make every claim false.
So we're back to the real disagreement: you begin with the assumption that miracle claims should always be rejected because miracles have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction. I don't begin with that assumption. I think the question is whether the total historical and philosophical evidence makes belief in God and the resurrection reasonable. That's where we differ.