The Bible can indeed be a valuable historical document. But only if the claims made in the Bible can be verified by other historical sources and archeological findings. Otherwise there is no certainty that events and settings were not fabricated later out of religious fanaticism. If there is no whatsoever confirmation for the existence of a king Solomon and all the splendor of his court and his far-reaching political and trade connections as described in the Bible, how can I seriously assume that this was not just made up centuries later? How can I assume that a building like his Temple existed when there is no trace of it to be found and even its exact location is purely speculative? And above all, you know pretty well that in the conventional chronology there is no room for all the biblical tales anyways. Belief may be a good thing for some, but it is not sufficient to fill gaps in archeological and historical records for an encyclopedia. Religion must not be used to replace or avoid facts.