Clarification of rule #3- Bible as evidence

[OpenYourEyes]

To moderators, preferably admin.

Here's one of the forum rules:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

I started another thread to address this rule but I did not get any clarification or confirmation. I questioned its application on this forum when a moderator made a series of statements that are contrary to rule #3 by reducing the Bible to just being claims or as being part of circular reasoning when used in debate.

Please clarify or confirm:
The Bible serves as evidence FOR claims regarding people, places and events. IN other words, the Bible is not just a matter of claims but can serve as EVIDENCE for claims. These claims relate to history and not theology, which is implied by the terms, "places", "people", and "events".

Is my understanding correct?

[polonius]

Do you agree that some of accepted history is based on nothing more than written accounts?

Yes.

If so, then doesn't it follow that appealing to only the Bible, unless the passages in use are disputable (maybe because supernatural is involved or some other reason which is part of the debate), can count as history per historical standards - not proof, just some historical validity?

No, it doesn't follow. The Bible is not the only source of written accounts.

Like I said, if an argument is going to be persuasive to a non-Christian, sources outside the Bible must be presented.

RESPONSE: And if these clearly refute the biblical account, are you banning them as JW seems to imply?