There has been much said about why history proves the Bible to be correct.
Personally, I feel that this is far from true.
Just because an historic city or place is mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible must therefore be true. I think this is an ontological argument if I recall.
I look at it this way.
Many fiction writers use places that exist and people that exist as the backdrop for their work of fiction.
EG. Hitler existed. Winston Churchill existed. WW2 happened. All this is verifiable with evidence. However, Dr Who is fictional and he has met both (and a host of other historic personages), and was there in WW".....this does not mean that because these other things existed that Dr Who is a real person.....more's the pity!
The bible where beautiful in parts and vile in others, is still a dangerous book to go waving around and using as authority.