Is the Bible historically accurate?
If you believe that archaeology gives the best picture as to what is historically accurate as concerns the Bible, there are three categories of stories that the Bible has in terms of archaeology:1) Personal Stories -- such as the life of Abraham and his children in the Book of Genesis -- These types of stories do not leave any significant archaeological evidence and are, therefore, unverifiable. It does not mean that the stories are true or false, but that we cannot know.2) Large Historical Events without Corroborating Evidence -- such as the Exodus in Egypt -- These types of stories should leave significant archaeological evidence because they are national and politically relevant stories. Therefore, when we find practically no evidence of these events, it means that they are more than likely historically inaccurate.3) Large Historical Events with Corroborating Evidence -- such as the invasion of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah by Assyria -- These types of stories should leave significant archaeological evidence because they are national and politically relevant stories. Therefore, when we find corroborating evidence of these events, such as parallel accounts from neighboring civilizations or artifacts, it means that they are more than likely historically accurate (or as accurate as other sources from the same time period).So, any event that falls into the third category, such as the Invasion of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah by Assyria, the conquest of Judah by Babylon and the Babylonian Captivity, the Return of the Jews to Judah under King Cyrus of Persia, are generally considered historically accurate. The majority of the Bible, unfortunately is either made up of non-stories (like the Psalms and Proverbs, which are poetry) or personal stories, for which a truth value cannot be assessed.