I can appreciate it. If you start with a perfect example or something to live by being in the past, then absolutely historical accuracy is important because this JUST IS fidelity to that which is to be learned. "Bible" as we use the word just means something like a first reference you can stand on. If the principles of that reference cannot be disentangled from historical detail or the mind of the writers--and as a text in human language it cannot be--then there must be historical accuracy, and the writers must be accurate to the inspiration.
On the one hand I feel that there is enough of a "bible" all around us, in each other, in the works of any number of great minds, and first and foremost, in our own mind, that the Christian Bible isn't important to me and I don't really care what Jesus said or didn't. On the other hand, I sympathize with the draw of HAVING a single reference text in which to tune your thinking, as I have one myself, somewhat despite myself, so I know the feeling of wondering about how the editing process might have altered it, how language use has changed, and other things that might disrupt my ability to receive that same inspiration from which the work was derived.
If one finds an exceptional teacher, it is not a long stretch for a student to give credibility and acceptance to what the teacher says simply because the teacher has said it, with faith that the teacher has suitably derived what he is saying. In some sense you have recruited the teachers mind as an inaccessible provider of your own knowledge and it is understandable to critique a person for not thinking for themselves by adopting and defending things they do not presently have the wherewithal to satisfactorily derive themselves. Yet often just as valuable as the process of coming to know for yourself is simply having the results of what you could come to know to start with and growing into being able to make the connections yourself whereby you could derive them. Insofar as you may make an analogy of the development of human minds out of the industrialization of countries, you can compare the benefits of the following methods: spending 200 years growing your own indigenous industrial revolution without any guidance or influence from those who have gone before you, or you can capitalize on the products of the industrialization of other countries and use them to build your own capacity to back-derive the capacity to now build them yourself in a measly 10 to 20 years. As social beings we will certainly tacitly accept the products of those we think have gone before us. We will quite naturally emulate each other, taking for granted a bit that we ARE authorities on things until our judgment gives us reason to doubt it due to conflicting evidence. One wants a good teacher as a very simple matter of minimizing effort to achieve maximum gain. Spiritual advancement (or just advancement however conceived) of human psychologies seems to come so slowly and with so many wandering paths, anyone would have considerable self-interest in being led well.
