Hey Buz,
I guess you started this topic based on my suggestion in the other thread. Although not strictly the way I would have framed the discussion, it still contains some valid points worth discussing.
EvC Biblicalist creationists have been chastized for referring to the Biblie as a Biblical historical record. Does the Bible contain history? Like all the other souces of history, the Biblical scribes allege to have recorded accuracy. How much is accurate, as is the case with all recorded history is debatable.
If I understand your main point here, I would say (as have others), that "Yes, the Bible contains
some historical references." Whether or not these references are completely
accurate is another question, however. If a Biblicalist wishes to use those limited references in an argument, then I would say that it would be completely legitimate to do so. At that point, however, the question of the reliability of those references is open; this is what needs to be supported with external - non-Biblical - evidence. Simply assuming the Bible is true because it is the Bible, and demanding everyone else accept that is where the Biblicalists get into trouble.
On to your specific questions:
1. Does a Biblical historical record exist?
I would answer that it depends on what you mean by "Biblical historical record". Thus far I'm not sure you've clarified this enough for me to address succinctly. If you mean the Bible as a whole, then I'd have to say "no". As others have noted, the Bible contains a mix of history, myth, legend, theology, and philosophy. It is partly proscriptive, partly prescriptive, and partly descriptive. Which bits are which really depends on one's interpretation. On the other hand, if you mean to ask only whether the Bible may contain some historical references, then the answer would of course be "yes".
2. Must a historical record be imperically substantiated to be 100% accurate to be regarded as a historical record? If not, what percentage of a record must be imperically substantiated accurate to be regarded as a historical record?
"Valid" (and I use the term advisedly) history doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be used as a historical record. I don't think any history is necessarily 100% accurate. However, and I think this is a key point, a document purporting to be "history" must be able to be corroborated by other sources, AND it must be open to revision as new information comes to light. The Bible, unfortunately, doesn't appear to meet either criteria.
3. Certain books of the OT are nearly all alleged history such as the Chronicals, Kings, Numbers, etc. Must these books be imperically verified before Biblical creationist members are allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in discussion and debate?
In the sense that I noted above in my opening paragraph, I have absolutely no problem if anyone wants to use the (obvious) historical bits contained in the Bible in a discussion. HOWEVER, and I really want to emphasize this point again, using them as such throws the door open to an examination of the accuracy and, erm,
historicity of the claims. If there is some evidence contrary to the statements/claims/history mentioned, then I would say that you need external verification. You cannot simply assume the Bible - even the historical bits - are true without further examination. This goes for ANYTHING claiming to be history, not just the Bible.
Use it judiciously, and be aware that skeptics are going to question it so you'll need some additional references, and you should be okay.