Something I think needs to be addressed is the errors found in the apocrypha.
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Obviously, Nebudchanezzar was king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians. How can this be scripture when it's so blatantly inaccurate?
Some scholars believe this was done intentionally to stamp the book as fiction. That does not mean it's not divinely-inspired, that means it's not literal history, or maybe a mixture of real events and fiction ("based on a true story").
Still, apparently most of the Fathers treat it at face value. It could be any number of things: a transmission error in an early manuscript, bad information on the part of the original author, or whatever else. That does not render the entire book worthless. If that is the standard, then the Bible has a lot of credibility issues. Even the gospels disagree on the precise timing of various events. These kinds of details were not important to ancient writers, so we cannot get hung up on them. They were more concerned about the overarching truth of the matter. What kingdom Nebuchadnezzar ruled has no bearing on the Judith story at all.
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
Seven generations? That's way longer than 70 years as predicted in the OT.
Not when people were considered adults at age 12 or 13, got married and consummated immediately, likely leading to children and a generation spacing of 13-14 years. Besides, in the Bible numbers are almost always symbolic and not merely calculations (if they are ever simple calculations).
The number 7 almost always refers to completeness, after the Creation narrative. So when you see "70 years", it means "the fullness of time". "Seven generations" means "the complete number of generations". It means the same thing. This is true both in the agreed-upon books and the deuterocanonical books. If you look at the Talmud, the Jews also understand that numbers are symbolic and not literal. I have found that the only people obsessed with factual accuracy in these details are some branches of Protestantism and people who try to disprove the Bible on the same grounds.
In both of these examples, something can be true, even if it isn't scientifically and factually accurate in every detail.