There have been a couple of older responses to similar questions which may give some food for thought, until someone comes along to address your specific angle.

• Can the bible be considered a reliable or even usable source in non religious historical writings?, answered by /u/Trevor_Culley
• Is the Bible/religious texts considered a reliable source for historians?, answered by /u/kookingpot

I particularly like /u/Trevor_Culley's emphasis on the point that the Bible (or, in the context of your question, the Hebrew Bible) isn't a book, it's a collection of texts. Those texts are in several different genres: poetry, wisdom literature, prophecy, cosmogony, cultural origins, and chronography. All of them contain historical data of one kind or another; the chronographic bits are probably the bits that are closest to what you could call 'history', particularly the post-Davidic bits of Kings and Chronicles.

But ancient sources aren't either 'true' or 'false': they contain good and bad data. Turning that data into history is the job of modern historians.

I guess also as a seperate or follow up question

I know that Mormons see the Book of Mormon fitting into the historical timeline of the Old Testament. Or at least being supported by this. Is there any truth to those claims? Are the people and times that the Book of Mormon references in relation to the Old Testament actually real? Or are they just part of a fiction Bible story?

Edit: a word