Bria, much evidence suggests that the ancient Hebrews and the authors of the NT considered Bibilical texts to be historical record. The OT/NT in fact have quite an excellent track record in archeological circles. That is one reason why many non-christians have such difficulty with the Bible. On the one hand, it is a reliable historical record, and on the other it makes claims that may seem preposterous. What is actually the case is that the preposterous claims were actually taken as seriously by the original authors as was the interspersed historical record. This particular regard given the Bible is the basis of Christianity, Judaism, and in many important ways, Islam. The idea of the Bible solely as literature is actually a very recent concept and has no basis in the historical origin of the book itself.
For this reason alone, I encourage you to take the Bible as seriously as its authors did. This is really the only way to understand its literary merit.
I do take it seriously, as literature. The only people that take apparent preposterous claims seriously are Bible believers.
I think you overestimate the track record of the Bible in archaeological circles. Very little that is written in the Hebrew Bible can be verified from external sources.
The appeals to the supernatural, the complete absence of evidence for the majority of bible claims, and the masses of contradictions make the Bible unreliable as a historical source.
The last 20 years have seen a rapid decline in the use of the Bible in archaeological circles, even the most fervent Bible supporters, WIlliam Dever for example, agree that the Bible is mainly myth and propaganda.
The only reason that the Bible is used by any 'archaeologist' is to try and make any archaeological data fit the Bible account, the contortions that these people perform are ridiculous. The King David of the Tel Dan inscription is a good example of so-called archaeologists prematurely claiming that the Bible is correct 'again'.
I dont have a problem with the Bible. I do have a problem with people who havent studied the Bible and/or archaeology and claim that the Bible is an accurate record of anything. I am not saying that this applies to you, but it applies to people who post inane articles on their websites claiming things like Pilate was thought of as fictional before the 1961 inscription find at Caesarea, and ludicrous claims that archaeology has never disproved anything in the Bible.
Best wishes
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!