As /u/Searocksandtrees says, please see the FAQ. On a more general point: it's pretty well impossible to get an unbiased account of anything. For instance it would be a mistake to think that the Assyrian account of a successful siege of Jerusalem is more objective than the account in II Kings. While you may recoil from the description of a miracle in the Jewish account, this does not mean that the Assyrians can be trusted: the role of the Assyrian inscription is to build up the reputation of the king, not to be a history in a modern sense.
And even were such a history available, it would be biased. I was taught history in an English school, and there were few errors in the lessons. However the lessons ignored neighbouring countries such as Scotland or Ireland, and by not covering them gave a very misleading view of the context of events.
hi! not discouraging more input on this, but do check out this section of the FAQ (link on sidebar):
I'm intrigued by the phrase "unbiased account." Can you explain what you mean?