Time travel? You're going to need some really convincing evidence for that.
However, I did want to make a point about one thing you said, specifically, "it is now my honest belief that what we have been told about ancient religious and historical events may not be exactly what really happened as reported by our historians". No, really? Lesse, first we have eyewitness syndrome - eyewitnesses are not generally reliable and have a high tendency to make mistakes. Most events in the past were reported by eyewitnesses, so naturally there's going to be mistakes. Lots of mistakes.
Second, we have telephone syndrome - as a story is retold, details are changed. Lots of these old events were passed on verbally, because writing was not a particularly common skill in most ancient countries. The likelihood of having a scribe available to take down a story before it got inflated was not high.
Third, we have the fact that writings (as opposed to printings) tend to drift as well. Books don't last all that long, and before the invention of the printing press, the only way to preserve the knowledge in them was to recopy them. Many scribes had a tendency to change the text they were transcribing, in order to make it easier to understand, and mistakes were common
[1]. Unless they were caught fairly quickly, they tended to stick around.
Fourth, we have the fact that translations from other languages can be very difficult. Ideas and concepts in one language may not be present in another; often, one word can have multiple meanings.
So of course ancient history is not very accurate. The amazing thing is that it has any accuracy at all, after thousands of years of entropy and people just getting it wrong.
