To deal with the first quote.
1) The scriptural quotations are not relevant to the archaeological findings.
(If they even apply - most of the Bible is NOT the Word of God in any literal sense).
2) He does not mention the variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text - or the significant varaiations found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The 400 BC date is wrong for the Septuagint - translation started in the early 3rd Century BC with the Torah with other books translated later, on a piecemeal basis. Early Christians used the Spetuagint rather than the Hebrew.
3) None of this says anythign about the transmission of the text prior to 300 BC.
To deal with the second source which you give no reference for, it seems that you have badly misunderstood it.
1) Mansur's quote for instance is taken out of context - presumably from here:
http://danenet.wicip.org/mbas/mena.htmlWhat he means about confusing fact with faith is jumping to conclusions - associating archaeological finds with the Bible without adequate evidence. Mansur died in 2001
2) The quote from Finkelstein contains no validation at all - speaking of "...desperate attempts to prove that the Bible was correct". I note also that if this article is your source
Page not found · Christianity Without the Religion/Plain Truth Ministries then you have further misrepresented Finkelstein by failing to recognise that "of archaeology" is not part of the original quote. If they think that Finkelstein believes that the Bible is largely accurate they are not familiar with his work (I suggest reading _The Bible Unearthed_ written by Finkelstein with Neil Asher Silberman).
3) The third is also largely critical - about the only thing he says is validated by archaeology is that there was a kingdom of Israel.
In short, with the possible exception of Mansur, they are NOT saying that the Bible is largely accurate - if anything the opposite. It is accurate only in the broad outline with many inaccuracies.
As for the final source I think it unlikely that Glueck has anything to say on the developments of the last thirty years. As the article says "Dr. Glueck died at age 70 in February 1971..."