I think the idea of looking at the Bible as accurate history is flawed in itself. History as we think of it is a fairly recent intellectual revolution, so trying to fit the Bible into a modern history mold would require you to basically have God forcing the writers to write in a certain way. To the ancient Jews, "history" was about telling a story and getting across a point, not about giving information with as much accuracy as possible.
2 Chr. 22:2 says something that is not only not true, but something that is not even possible: "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king". This is not possible because it would make him older than his Father (cf 2 Chr. 21:20-22:2). 2 Kings 8:26 got it right when it says that "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king". As an interesting aside, the Greek Septuagint (which is what the New Testament writers and early Church quoted from most of the time) has a different reading than the Hebrew, but also makes an error, saying that Ahaziah is either 22 or 20 years old, depending on which verse you look at. I have brought this up on a few different forums, but I haven't seen an explanation yet showing how both passages can simultaneously be factual.
In the end, I don't think it should matter. It only matters if you accept the Bible as being inerrant, something that contains a completely factual historical record.
__________________
"A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." - Schopenhauer |