If you, and those who agree with you, are right, then no historical claim in the Bible can override a historical finding of science. Let me then say this to the Bible believers among you: You may think that the historical claims you cling to in the Bible are safe from scientifically-generated history (SGH) - and they may be...for now. But science did not discredit Noah's Flood as a global event...until it did. Science did not discredit the historicity of Adam and Eve...until it did. Science did not discredit any historical claim of the Bible...until it did. If you think SGH has claimed all the biblical territory that it ever will, you are thinking myopically.
I'm perfectly willing to concede that, as some of you suggest, we should give way to science on matters of history for the same reasons and in the same way we gave way to science on matters of science. But if you do so on the matters in contention now, be assured that it is only a matter of time before other matters will be in contention. Ultimately, this will lead to questioning the resurrection of Christ Himself.
Recognize that we have nothing but human testimony (with divine affirmation, for those who accept such affirmations) to assure us that the resurrection of Christ was a historical reality. If SGH is superior to human testimony (even with divine affirmation) in the book of Genesis, what principle will you invoke to say that it is not superior when it comes to matters in any of the other 65 books of the Bible?
If God is granting that SGH is superior history to the Bible's, He is granting it for all matters for all time. This is the inevitable consequence of your logic.