This is the same pattern all over again.
You start with something you want to be true. Then you search for things to support it and ignore all the evidence that contradicts your preexisting beliefs.
I've yet to see any contradictory evidence.
If I do see contradictory evidence, I will not ignore it.
That doesn't mean I will find it convincing. But if I disagree with it, I will provide a good reason for that disagreement.
What evidence would change your mind and get you to accept that the bible isn't historically accurate
Well, you could produce reliable information that the consensus of historians and archeologists is no longer that the Bible's history is reasonably accurate back to about 900 BC.
I'd also be interested in reliable information as to what the new consensus is, and why they changed their minds.
(any more than any other mythological text)?
Hold on here. I acknowledge that other ancient texts contain good history as well.
As one example, the fact that Egyptian hieroglyphs babble on and on about "sun gods" and the like doesn't change the fact that they also contain a wealth of historical information and insight into ancient Egypt.
I have already given you several examples of inaccuracies
You made a vague reference to getting the order of kings wrong, and referring to battles that you claim do not exist.
On the surface those seem to be minor errors (if they are errors at all), but I'd have to know specifically what you are talking about in order to know for sure.
I have yet to receive any clarification as to what exactly you are referring to.
from well after your limit.
As best I can tell without receiving clarification as to what you are talking about, you are referring to writings from well after the Israeli kingdoms ceased to exist.
It is hard to see how such inaccuracies, if they exist, impugn the history that came from the Israeli kingdoms.