The ability to treat the Bible as a historical source, rather than a religious document is an exercise is objectivity. Even for believers, there are processes that encourage critical examination of claims in order to lessen the biases (same in reverse for those with no religion, who would be biased to reject). The ability to use the Bible as a historical source, for insights into period, culture, politics, etc. is a no brainer. To exclude it merely on 'religious' grounds is antithetical of rational discourse.
You a free to reject the Bible as religion, but we cross a intellectual rubicon when we exclude documents merely because they have religious origins. The trick is critical examination, neither blind affirmation or rejection.
History is written by those who have witnessed it or were given information by witnesses. The Bible refers to many historical events and has even led modern explorers to make a discovery of an ancient city that was once thought to be fictional. It makes mention of people who did in fact live and events that can in fact be confirmed by other historical documents. The Bible, while used as a book of religious guidelines, also serves us in relating some history. Whether it is placed in one category or another does not take away from the fact that it qualifies for both.
Ignoring any divine interpretation, the Bible was a production of actual people. We don't need to know who those people actually are in order to posit that their viewpoints are historically credible. One must understand that the term "credible" doesn't infer "infallible," rather, it means an honest accounting by people who lived at a time more contemporaneous than any others.
Yes, the Bible is a historically credible document, because it has been checked against other sources of history. There have been other historical sources that have talked about Jesus. The military actions of the Israelites in the Old Testament times have been verified by historians, who found their actions to be effective.
And so should every single religion. The bible has been written by white straight men to manipulate and put them in a position of superiority. There is no proof of what happens is the bible. If the bible was a historically credible document, we should have much more proof of what is said to have happened in those times. As I said before the bible is not credible because it was used to serve unethical purposes such as taking away rights of women and homosexuals (Could that be a sin?). Christianity, just like any other religion should not be trusted upon how you live your life. If you think I'm wrong, I will ask you this : How many decisions do you take based on religion? Far too many, thats for sure.
For the most part, I would say that the Bible is not a historically credible document. Although there are parts of it that match up to other credible accounts in history, there are many that don't. Furthermore, the Bible doesn't specify periods of time, which makes it hard to "decode", if you will. For example, the four Gospels have almost four different accounts of Jesus' birth.
The Bible is the most odious, most vile collection of fiction ever devised by man. Genocide, slavery, adultery, and other violence are condoned by a monster god. The evil twin, Jesus, is even worse, being "sacrificed" for the "sins" of all human beings. The Bible is not history, it is not science, it is NOT a moral compass. It isn't anything. I shudder at the fact that some people still take the Bible, and their god seriously, instead of relying on the evidence and facts of history, science, and philosophy. It should not be relegated to the realm of religion; it should be discarded.
We have evidence that some of the things in the Bible actually happened and there are other parts that seem to be describing a fairytale. For this reason the book should be relegated to the realm of the religion with the thought that some things are historically correct. It is not a historical document in its entirety.