This is a topic that is addressed quite often and the general consensus is that it does not do so but it does help its credibility and reliability. In general i take a different approach and perspective to this idea as i feel at times it does prove not only that the Bible is true but also very accurate.
Not all discoveries will point to a specific part of the bible and say–‘look we have the evidence, this is true.’ At times and for the most part it shows that what the bible mentions is accurate and it is in the right time period for whatever it is talking about. For example, the name Abraham, we have proven that such a name, or even Abram, was in use during the time of the patriarchs yet this discovery does not prove that any of the names recovered refer to the biblical man who fathered many nations. Thus we know that the bible is very accurate and this helps dispel arguments from those who think the scriptures were written long after the fact.
The same for the recent discovery of the name Goliath. Though that potsherd with the name inscribed on it doesn’t point to the biblical goliath, it does shoe that it was a philistine name and it was in use when the bible stated it was. So again, we can draw strength from this fact knowing that the bible can be relied upon to give factual and accurate information.
Then we have other discoveries which i believe can point to the truthfulness of the biblical accounts thus proving the bible true. K. A. Kitchen in his career as an Egyptologist found and proved that the going price for a slave at the time of joseph was 20 shekels. Does this prove that joseph was sold to the Midianites? No, but it does show that the bible is true when talking about the price of slaves and that its record should not be dismissed.
Or in another example, over the past few decades, not sure exactly when, there was a discovery of a foot bone with a nail through it. This artifact demonstrated that crucifixions took place and were practiced by the romans just as the bible said. Now does this prove that Jesus was crucified? No, but it does show the bible as true when talking about the fact that the romans practiced such a penalty for crime.
Thus through archaeology, we will get verification of the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible though we won’t get all the evidence we seek because the bible is needed to be taken by faith. God wants people to believe and to take His word for it when all others look for the physical evidence. God sees the difference: those who believe His words without proof and those who doubt even with physical proof. Faith not archaeology is the key; as archaeology takes a supportive role here because its work is limited and it (and archaeologists) should not be elevated to being the final authority even though it provides much evidence to back the bible.
The field of archaeology is not infallible and its discoveries are often misused, misinterpreted and used to lead believers astray. Yes it helps the bible but it is not the authority the secular world wants it to be.