Lol no, not even remotely. In fact pretty much all the archaeological evidence is against the Bible going all the way back to the Pentateuch. King Josiah had most of the first five books written entirely for political propaganda purposes.
Check out The Bible Unearthed for a fairly recent, fairly complete layman's overview of the archaeological evidence which has mounted against the Bible over the past century. And realize, too, that archaeologists began from the premise that the Bible was, on some level, historically accurate in terms of the story of Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, and the founding of Israel, and yet not a single ounce of archaeological evidence thus far supports the Biblical accounts. No Exodus. No cities in Canaan in the time period in which the Bible describes the conquering by the Israelites, no fortified cities with walls to come atumblin down, in fact Egypt owned the territory at the time and forbade cities from building fortifications, and when they didn't, the Hittites did, and also forbade cities from having fortifications. They, like Rome, built their own guard posts and territorial barriers with their militaries, fortifications in the region were just asking for obstinent cities to rebel against their rulers.
So much of the Bible is fiction, its the least legitimate historical document in existence. The entire Pentateuch was written in the 7th and 8th centuries, half a millenia after the supposed events that they depict occured, yet surprisingly, the document details, almost perfectly, what that region looked like politically in 7th and 8th centuries.
Here's a video of James Randi completely demolishing the idea that the city Jesus was supposed to have been born in even existed at the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY