Sort of. This is the point I'm trying to make: the Bible isn't all one thing. Parts of it are written versions of oral traditions that are probably quite different from the reality of what happened, but some parts of it are literally historical books that should be considered at least as credible as other classical histories. But because the Bible is made up of many books, each one would have to be evaluated on not just it's historical accuracy, but on whether or not historical accuracy is even relevant.

Thanks for reading!