You can't trust the Bible because it is not history
Well, it depends on what you mean. The Bible is a collection of books, inclusive of differing genres. For example, Psalms is poetry, while Proverbs contains advice and Isaiah is regarded as prophecy. Some like Daniel is a mixture of history (Daniel 1-6) and imagery/prophecy (Daniel 7-12).
Even among certain" historical" books like 1 Kings and 2 Kings, the books only present a theological relationship of the kings of Israel and Judah with God. The books emphasis this by saying that other events of the kings' reign were written elsewhere (namely the annals of the kings of Israel or Judah).
But some parts of the Bible are intended to be literal history
Of course, we cannot expect Biblical history to be exactly like how modern history is written, as the concept of history (as a academic subject) was formalised much later (Lewis, 1946).
That said there are parts of the Bible intended to be literal history. For instance in Mark 14, it is recorded that there was man who was almost caught by the Romans.
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. -- Mark 14: 51-52
This naked youth played no further role (literal or metaphorical) in the narrative. Thus the only reason for including this part was that the events actually happened.
Conclusion
While some parts of the Bible was not meant to be literal history, it does not mean the other parts are not.
References
