I think the following principle is true: For every divine revelation there is a detectable effect. Whether this effect is a miracle or not is a separate matter. How science or history explain the effect is also a separate matter. The point is that Christian apologetics can show the detectable effect and then point to the divine revelation as its proper cause and explanation.
If we do not accept this principle, we open ourselves up to spiritualism and gnosticism, in which revelation is in a separate reality from what is detectable, and the Bible may be contrary to fact but spiritually true.
I had a theistic evolutionist try to tell me that revelation is undetectable by science. He gave the example of Communion (the Eucharist) as including a spiritual element completely undetectable by science. I pointed out 1 Co. 11:27-34 where the apostle links sickness to wrong spiritual attitudes about Communion. We may not be able to connect sickness to a spiritual attitude but sickness is detectable.
Of course some revelations are about the future and so may not be detectable yet. But the trustworthiness of the revelation may still be established by the trustworthiness of those giving the revelation and those transmitting it.
In any case, divine revelation has detectable effects.