Historically Accurate Bible

This is hard to answer because it is so broad a question. The Bible makes many claims about historical events, and each of these claims could be subject to questioning by skeptics of the Bible's historical accuracy. As Christians, our most powerful proof of the historical accuracy of scripture is that scripture is God's Word. Because God does not lie, we can be sure that the Bible is accurate and truthful history. However, this proof is unlikely to convince those who are steeped in stubborn unbelief.

Speaking in terms more readily accessible to the anti-Christian historian, the Bible is at least as reliable as any comparable surviving document from whatever historical period is in question. Thus, if a historian finds what he or she believes to be a documentary contradiction in the historical record, and further study shows that it is indeed an actual contradiction, the Bible would be just as reliable a witness, or even more so, than another document from the same period. This applies to historical documents, but what about archeological evidence, such as artifacts etc.? The answer to this is that to the extent that the archeological evidences are authentic, they will not, in reality, contradict scripture. If their really does seem to be a contradiction, then either the facts are being misinterpreted or misapplied, or the witness of scripture is being misinterpreted or misapplied. However, I am unaware of any such contradictions.