'Enough archaeological confirmation has been found so that many historians now consider the Old Testament, at least that part after about the eleventh chapter of Genesis, to be historically correct. It seems strange that seminary professors often still teach the old “doubtful criticism” theories, even though the basis on which they were started has now been thoroughly discredited.'
The author doesn't name any archaeological evidence, he mentions the finds at Mari, Ebla and Nuzi but deosn't go into any detail at all, what is the evidence and what does it CONFIRM, he says himself that the names in the Mari texts 'cannot be linked directly with Biblical characters.' He also doesn't mention who these 'many historians' are that accept Genesis 11 as historically correct.
It is also either untrue or very badly out of date. Archaeologists have pretty much rejected all of the books from Exodus to Joshua as being in any way reliable, Judges is regarded as largely legend although possibly containing some useful information and there are now serious doubts over whether Saul, David or Solomon ruled over anything more than Judah.
Only point 2 even attempts to address the question - and it is of rather questionable accuracy (to say the least) .
Isn't the whole Flood story a rather obvious myth ? What about Babel ? What about the lifespan attributed to Adam, Eve and their descendants ? The claim that it is eye-witness history simply does not stand up to scrutiny at all.
Matthew puts Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod the Great.
Luke puts Jesus' birth during a Roman census held while Quirinius was Governor of Syria for the purpose of taxation, this happened after the Romans deposed Herod's son Herod Archelaus, in the tenth year of his reign (starting with the death of Herod the Great).
(See Josephus, _Antiquities of the Jews_ XVII.13 for the deposition of Archelaus and XVIII.1 for the census)
There is no evidence placing Qurinius as Governor of Syria prior to this (indeed we know that Quintilius Varus was Governor when Herod died and Saturninus before him), nor is there any evidence that a Roman census of Judaea for tax purposes was held prior to that - nor even a good reason to suppose that the Romans would hold such a census (Judaea under Herod paid tribute to Rome, a sum agreed between the Roman government and Herod so the Roman tax system did not apply).