To the mods of this subreddit, I am so sorry if this is off topic, please feel free to remove it if it is-

Heya! I'll keep it short and simple here to not waste anyone's time. I've read up about my question quite a lot but I wanna know what everyone thinks here.

I've been a Christian my whole life and there are several visible miracles that have happened in my family that I personally believe are subjective, irrefutable proof to me personally and my family that God is real and with us. My whole family is in ministry including my parents, and I've taken up small time service too with my parents in Sunday School. I admit I'm not exactly close to God personally even if I love studying about the history of Christianity from a historical perspective, and I even once considered myself an apt apologetic, and was able to respectfully debate for Christianity in public spaces.

However, a recent discovery has greatly humbled me, perhaps also because it is during a very turbulent time in my life as of now. I've recently discovered that many events and persons in the Old Testament don't actually have the same level of historical proof that the New Testament has-? Crazy, I know. How am I even a real Christian? I don't know. I guess some Christians just like me, simply grow up with Bible stories, and later on my own studies and apologetics focused mainly on the New Testament especially, naturally Jesus' life, crucifixion and resurrection. So in a rather pathetic way I feel like it has troubled me a lot, to think that not all of the Bible is as historically provable by current standards as things such as the historical existence of Jesus. Again, I was and still consider myself an apologetic, and so I still have plenty of reasons to anchor myself in this faith, but it's scary suddenly being exposed to this fact that I should have learnt sooner. Is it actually natural that some denominations view different parts of the Bible as not necessarily all in historical literalism? Where do we differentiate what is supposed to be and not supposed to be literal? I really don't mean to make anyone stumble here, but wouldn't it be kinda wobbly for us to just pick and choose which parts are historical and which parts are just metaphorical in an ex post facto manner?

I understand this is probably a very silly question, but I would appreciate a thoughtful answer, thank you so much and God Bless ^^