The Bible is diachronic but secular historical sciences are synchronic. Let me explain.
The term “diachronic” arose in the study of the development of languages over a long time, which was the focus of linguistics in the 19th century. But to make linguistics more scientific in the 20th century this changed to study languages as systems during particular time periods. The former approach was called diachronic, the latter synchronic. These terms have come into use in history as the study of a people or place over a long stretch of time (diachronic) vs. the study of a time period over a large area (synchronic).
The Bible follows the Hebrew people over a long stretch of time, from their beginning on, which is diachronic. The historical sciences are strongly synchronic: they study a wide area over a distinct period (or series of distinct periods) of time.
Synchronic linguistics is unified by the premise that languages have a common origin, a genetic relationship. So the question becomes how to explain the differences between languages. When this synchronic premise was applied to biological species, the question became how to explain the differences between species.
The Bible presents the opposite: that biological kinds/baramin are distinct, though they have the same Creator. So the question for a biblical biology is how to explain the similarities between distinct kinds/baramin. A particular study might study a baramin over a long time. Several of such studies might lead to the discovery of parallel changes in baramin that are explained by environmental changes and similar ways of adapting. These are diachronic studies.
So the Bible and secular historical sciences diverge, not only because they have different premises but because they have different approaches to historical science. The Bible is diachronic and secular science is synchronic.