Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament texts are very important sources for historical research; however, it is not as straightforward as, say, the book of Kings being a historically accurate source for the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is important to recognize first of all that none of the texts in the Bible were written as straightforward historical records; even books like Kings and Chronicles in the Hebrew Bible and Acts in the New Testament, which on the surface seem like historical accounts, are better understood as historiosophy, stories framed as historical accounts whose primary purpose is to use that "history" to convey theological points. For example, a quick comparison of Paul's travels in the Book of Acts significantly differs from his own account of his doings in his own letters; whereas Paul seems to have a troubled relationship with leaders of the early church in Jerusalem like James and Peter, in Acts their relationship is much less antagonistic, and disagreements between them are resolved without too much drama. Acts also seems to follow a consistent formula whenever Paul and his companions go to a new city to preach the gospel, with Paul going to the synagogue to teach, being rejected by the Jews therein, and then proceeding to preach to the Gentiles, among whom he wins converts. This formula mirrors the overall story of the Gospel of Luke (written by the same author), where Jesus preaches first to the Jews, is rejected and crucified, then after his resurrection commands his followers to preach to the Gentiles, among whom they gain converts. This formula is seen by scholars as an illustration of Luke's central message of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles; this is a prime example of historiosophy, where the "historical" account is written in a way that demonstrates the theological message of the author.

Obviously, the primarily theological nature of the Biblical texts means that scholars must be careful not to use them as straightforward history, or as historically accurate accounts of, say, the life of Jesus of Nazareth or the early church. Scholars must often read between the lines of such texts to try to reconstruct what actually happened, and make educated guesses where our information is incomplete. To build on the previous example, most scholars tend to view the account of the early church in the Book of Acts as a whitewashed history, one which tries to smooth out the conflicts between Paul and his Gentile converts and the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem. So it is useful in reconstructing the history of early Christianity, but not because it is itself a historical document, or because it accurately recounts this history.

But I should also mention that the Biblical texts are valuable for historians not necessarily because they tell us what happened in the past, but how people in ancient times INTERPRETED the past. To move to the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), we can see this clearly in what is known as the Deuteronomistic History. This is a set of books including Joshua, Kings, and Judges that was written by the same author or theological school that wrote the book of Deuteronomy. The Deuteronomistic history presents a history of the Israelites drawn from earlier sources, but reinterprets those sources in a way that validates the theology of the Deuteronomistic school. The central tenet of Deuteronomistic theology was that suffering among the Israelite people was punishment for disobeying God, and for worshipping false idols instead of Yahweh. Throughout the books of Deuteronomistic history, we see this theme repeated, with kings who worshipped idols bringing God's wrath upon themselves or their descendants. So these books are not simply useful to scholars as offering clues as to what happened in the past (even if they are not always accurate); they are valuable also in telling scholars what people believed at the time they were written. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History tell us what Israelites at the time of the Babylonian exile were thinking about the nature of God and their own history.

So to conclude, while the books of the Bible are rarely ever straightforward history, or written with the intention of being historically accurate, they are still incredibly valuable to historians and other scholars. They can still offer important clues, if we read between the lines, about what actually happened in the past, and moreover, they tell us how ancient peoples thought about themselves and their own history at the time they were written.

The Bible has plenty of value in regards to non-religious research!

As you have said, the contents covered in the Bible cover millenia. Likewise, the Bible is not a single book, it is a collection of texts written over the span of several centuries. “The Bible” therefore, has several definitions depending on who you ask, it can refer to the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, etc. Usually when we say “The Bible” in English, we are referring to some variant of the Christian Bible (that is, separated into the Old Testament and the New Testament). Unless stated otherwise, I will be using the Christian definition of the Bible when I refer to the text as such.

As I said earlier, the Bible is not one book, it was written by several authors in different time periods for different purposes (the oldest parts of the Bible are believed to have been written before 1000 BC, whereas all of the books of the New Testament were written in the mid to late first century AD). The Bible is not defined to a single genre, the Pentateuch (or the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) gives an account of the creation of the world, the origin of the Israelites, and the Mosaic law meant to be ideally followed by the Israelites. The historical books (Joshua to Esther) gives an explanation for why the Israelites inhabit the land of Canaan, discusses the judges of Israel before the establishment of the monarchy, and gives a history of the monarchy of Israel from Israel’s first king, Saul, to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC and its eventual restoration by the Persians in 538 BC.

I have answered a question in the past inquiring of the historical accuracy of the Book of Judges, my answer discusses not only Judges itself, but also a bit on the Pentateuch and the early historical books (Joshua, Judges, and 1 and 2 Samuel). In my answer, I make the conclusion that later historical books (especially 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles) are more accurate in their literal portrayal of events than the Pentateuch and early historical books. I do not dismiss these books entirely, however, as the manner in which events are described in the earlier books provide us with insight on how the authors may have had some kind of recollection of past events not recorded in the Bible.

If the answer you’re looking for is if the Bible is 100% accurate in its portrayal of history, then no, it is not. Several events are described multiple times throughout the Old and New Testament with noticeable contradictions in each account. Most of the contradictions are rather minor. An example of this is when King Joash of Judah died, one account states he was not buried in the same tomb as his ancestors because he abandoned God and dedicated temples to false idols (2 Chronicles 24:17-25), while another account of Joash neglects to tell of his idol worship at all, and implies he was buried with his ancestors (2 Kings 12:21). Some more jarring contradictions appear in more famous stories such as Noah’s Ark, when one account says the worldwide flood lasted 40 days (Genesis 7:12) while another account says it lasted 150 days (Genesis 7:24). A proposed reasoning for the contradiction in the story of Noah is quite interesting. Noah’s Ark is told in Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch. Though many Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious traditions usually ascribe one author to the Pentateuch (Moses), a popular theory nowadays is that the Pentateuch was written and edited by several individuals. Four people are usually credited with writing the Pentateuch: the “Elohist” or E source, the “Yahwist” or J source, the “Priestly” or P source, and the “Deuteronomist” or D source. The E source is believed to have written much of Genesis, the narratives that call God “Elohim” (usually just translated as “God” in English) were likely written by him. The J source is credited with being another primary author for Genesis, and the first half of Exodus, the J source would be the source to call God “YHWH” (translated as “The LORD” in English). The P source is credited with writing the second half of Exodus, and all of Leviticus, being concerned with matters of religious laws and rituals. Lastly, the D source is credited with writing Deuteronomy. A final source would have taken the four separate sources, and compiled them together into a more unified text (the Pentateuch). This brings us back to Noah, if the multiple authors theory is true, then Genesis 6-9 was likely written by both the P and J source (P mostly describing the dimensions of the ark, J focusing mostly on narrative) with a third person combining the two accounts together. The J source in this case says the flood was 40 days, while the P source says it was 150 days.

The contradictions are not to say the Bible is completely historically inaccurate. Many of the events described in the Old Testament are attested to by other contemporary sources. There is a story in 2 Kings, for example, which describes a battle between Israel, led by King Joram, and Moab, led by King Mesha. An inscription from around the 9th century BC known as the Mesha Stele describes a similar conflict. The stele is claimed to have been authored by King Mesha of Moab, in it, he describes his victories over Israel after King Omri and his descendants oppressed Moab (in the Biblical account, Joram is the grandson of Omri). Though there are differences in the way the account is narrated, there is clearly a notion of rivalry between Israel and Moab given by both of these sources.

There is also historical value to be found in the prophetic books. The Book of Daniel, though taking place during the Babylonian captivity (587-539 BC), is believed to have not been written down until the second century BC. The final few chapters of Daniel are a series of prophecies given to Daniel by the archangel Gabriel. Given that Daniel was likely written in the second century BC, it would be more appropriate, rather than interpreting the prophecies as visions of the future, to see them as a prophetic view of the past (the Jewish canon, for example, does not place Daniel among the prophetic books, but rather among the writings and poetry). The prophecies are unquestionably about the conquests of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BC (he is not mentioned by name, but the prophecies explicitly tell of a Greek king who will conquer Persia, grow a vast kingdom, before having the kingdom split right after he dies), the interactions between the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt, and the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. Daniel is the only book of the Bible which provides detailed information on Israel during the Hellenistic period, and is the only book to even allude to the campaigns of Alexander (except in the case of Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, which include the books of Maccabees as part of their canon, 1 Maccabees mentions Alexander by name). By reading Daniel as prophetic history, we find quite an interesting perspective on the Hellenistic kingdoms as a group of evil, oppressive regimes.

One thing I notice quite often when people discuss the Bible is whether or not it is completely accurate. Many are quick to dismiss any value of the Bible completely due to these contradictions. With billions of people regarding the Bible as an infallible holy text, I can understand looking at its contents more critically than other texts. Unfortunately, a conclusion I often see being made is to dismiss the Bible entirely once one’s beliefs are affirmed the Bible is not divinely inspired (though I personally do not believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, I think it is a great shame it is dismissed so easily). Theological differences aside, the Bible provides us with much insight on how the ancient Israelites saw the world, what their values were, how they interacted with surrounding nations, and how they viewed history. It is a collection of ancient documents that, like other ancient documents, are influenced by the biases and subjective worldviews of the authors. To say the Bible has no historical value is like saying Herodotus’ Histories have no historical value because he attributes many of the Greek victories to the gods being on their side. The values to be found in the Bible are to be found in every religious text, such as the Qur’an, the Vedas, and Buddhist sutras, they all provide an insight on how the society that produced the text viewed the world. Once it is accepted the Biblical authors were not immune to biases, then there is much value to be found in how the Bible presents history, prophecy, and poetry.

I hope my answer helps! I feel like some parts of my answer may be a bit unclear, let me know if there is anything that confused you about it!

The Bible is considered incredibly important part of historical research.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_the_bible

Is the Bible/religious texts considered a reliable source for historians? by /u/kookingpot