That is strictly my own opinion but science and historical study has already rendered big chunks of the old testament as untrue so you have to figure there are many inaccuracies in the bible. Oh and you should recheck your facts on the bible. The bible was not put together as one book for many centuries after Christ's death. By that time many of the original scriptures had gone through many different re-writes and translations. I'd think that this would be common sense given the age of the book and that Christ lived in the Middle East over 2,000 years ago. Given that, how could ANYONE believe that the bible is 100% "literally" true?
You must think there is some signifance to the Council of 393, which "determined" the canon of scripture. All scripture had been in circulation among the churches from day one. And of the 28,000 Original manuscripts dating from the first and second century, they are all in near perfect agreement. But you are free to believe that God is not powerful enough to make sure His word gets from one generation to the next. What is ironic for you is I bet you don't question the accuracy of Homer's Illiad, yet it is not even in the same league as far as manuscript evidence.
Your historical evidence (wait, I didn't see any) which proves the OT false is really laughable. Case in point: Historians once believed that some of the books could not have been written when they have been attributed. Now, historians believe that there was a written language centuries before the first 5 books were written. Another case in point: Archeologist have uncovered evidence that the walls at Jerico fell outward and not inward as one would expect from an invading army. Of course, the evidence keeps mounting that the OT is an accurate historical account.
BTW, you never answered my question: How does a jolly fat elf reflect Christmas?