It's probably worth a more direct response to the OP:
Of course not everything is even supposed to be historical. E.g. the Psalms. But of the books starting with Genesis, there are a few points on which there's pretty good agreement outside conservative Protestants. I.e. current Catholic, mainline Protestant and secular scholars:
* The historical books were likely put into their final form during the Exile, when Jews were thinking about just why they ended up being defeated and exiled. These are not history for history's sake, but a story of how God dealt with people. He made them good, but they messed it up, starting with Adam and doing again and again. So the OT is the story of God's covenants with mankind and then Israel, and how God stayed committed to Israel and helped them start over each time. Of course the prophets of the Exile were confident that he'd so it again.
* It's likely that they had historical records back to David and maybe somewhat before. But for earlier events they were depending upon traditions that were only partly historical. Archaeologists don't think even the Exodus happened exactly as recorded, though parts of Israel might well have been slaves in Egypt.
* The NT is on more solid ground, because it was written within 50 - 60 years of the events, and some sooner than that. So we almost certainly know Jesus' teachings and what happened. But even so, you can see different perspectives among the Gospels, and to some extent conflicting historical details.
* If you are committed to inerrancy it's possible to explain away any possible errors and conflicts. With enough imagination you can turn black into white. That's why arguments over this topic are so useless.
* Extreme skepticism is just as much a danger as inerrancy. You'll find all kinds of weird claims, like Jesus was made up hundreds of years later. There's an atheist equivalent to fundamentalism, and lots of just nutty ideas. I'd stick with the kind of thing that is taught in major university courses on the Bible.