There are no scientific evidences to support 900+ years. We do have a group of books claiming to be eyewitness accounts.

Now you mention reasonably accurate. What would be the margin of error to be called reasonably accurate? If we were given a range of say 100-500 would that be reasonably accurate? The reason I ask is that the supposed carbon dating give ranges of thousands of years. What most should consider horribly inaccurate, yet it is acceptable in "science".

I strongly disagree that the information in the Bible is distorted. The accuracy of the oldest known complete copies are identicacle to recent versions. In addition the "scribes" had an extremely tedious method for making copies. Because of it the manuscripts were very well copied, not distorted or interpreted.

Your opinion, but you should add to interesting, amazing historical accuracy.

Skeptics are welcome, just exercise the same skepticism towards all the data you receive. You have of course accepted things without personally verifying them. I am sure you've never peered into a strong enough microscope to see an atom. Never visited china, never looked through a strong enough telescope to see pluto. You do believe they exist though.