The problem with the bible as a literal history of early man is that it just doesn't line histories of contemporaneous and even earlier cultures and indeed borrows heavily from religions that predate the Hebrews entirely.
To the first point, if you add up the timeline in the bible, the Noachian flood should have wiped out the Egyptians about 200 years after they'd built the pyramids...and yet not only is no such cataclysm recorded in their histories because then Ham apparently showed up and repopulated Egypt...exactly as it had been in culture and customs to the point where there was no record or change....? Nah, that won't wash.
To the second point, the bible borrows heavily from other older cultures, Sumerians, Mesopotamians, and Egyptians.
Now this is not to say that the bible records no history whatsoever because of course it does. It's just that it's more like a historical fiction novel then a history textbook. There are real places, events and people with an overlay of religious mythicism.
Another confounding factor for the bible as a legitimate history is the fact that it just doesn't line up with the natural world. For example, the order of creation described in Genesis is glaringly contradicted by the order of life in the fossil record. And the fossil record is ordered in a consistent way all over the world and it's not just Atheists who say that. Even your boys and Answers in Genesis acknowledge that the order is as paleontologists describe it.
But even if we leave all that aside, it's important to treat this claim logically.
Even if there were NO other histories or scientific discoveries from early man, that does not mean one should accept the bible as the default fact.
Because an explanation is not true simply by virtue of being the only one. Take for example the construction of the Great Pyramids. For the longest time, we had no idea how ancient peoples had managed to quarry, carve, haul and stack the great blocks. So some people declared that it was ALIENS or at least that aliens had helped the Egyptians do it.
Even if that was the only explanation for how they managed it...that doesn't make it True, do follow?
In the same way it is a logically feeble argument to say that the Bible is the only "historical document" of man's early history and therefore it is to be believed.
Now let's see if you read to the bottom of this post: There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. This you attest to if you do not deny it.
