Has archaeology ever shown the Bible was wrong?

Yes, in the sense that archaeology has raised real, unresolved challenges to some biblical narratives—and it's more honest to say that plainly than to pretend every discovery has confirmed the text.

The most debated area is the conquest of Canaan described in Joshua. Some excavations at Jericho found limited evidence of a fortified city standing during the period many scholars associate with Joshua's story, though the exact dating is itself disputed among archaeologists. Similarly, the population figures in Numbers describe over 600,000 fighting men, implying a total population many scholars think would be difficult to fit with the evidence for the region and period. Some suggest the Hebrew word involved may originally have meant something like "clan" rather than strictly "a thousand."

Archaeologists also disagree sharply about dating certain building structures connected to Solomon's reign, with some arguing the evidence fits a period a century later than the traditional date—a genuinely unresolved scholarly dispute known as the "chronology debate."

These are real, live questions among archaeologists and biblical scholars, not settled disproofs. Absence of clear evidence for something is different from clear evidence against it, and scholars land in different places, from skeptical to traditional, on how to weigh these specific cases.