• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It's quite a long piece but a good read. I've excerpted parts below.The headline is click bait but the discussion to me is useful. I've noted how translation can cause issues where "tents" in Hebrew was translated as "homes" - a big big difference as it turns out. The real headline is

An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy

The site had already been conclusively dated by an earlier expedition that had uncovered the ruins of a temple dedicated to an Egyptian goddess, linking the site to the empire of the pharaohs, the great power to the south.
...
the dig at the Faynan copper mines, which were also active around 1000 B.C., was already producing evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris. At Timna, too, the sophistication of the people was obvious, in the remains of intense industry that can still be seen strewn around Slaves’ Hill: the tons of slag, the sherds of ceramic smelting furnaces and the tuyères, discarded clay nozzles of the leather bellows, which the smelter, on his knees, would have pumped to fuel the flames. These relics are 3,000 years old,
...
Having started out interested in paleomagnetism, Ben-Yosef stumbled into the emotionally charged field of biblical archaeology. His academic position was at Tel Aviv University, the bastion of the critical approach whose adherents are skeptical of the Bible’s historical accuracy. (On the other side, in this simplified breakdown, are the “conservatives” or “maximalists” associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claim to have identified grand structures from the time of the united Israelite monarchy, supporting the biblical narrative.)
...
Their mining operation, in Ben-Yosef’s interpretation, reveals the workings of an advanced society, despite the absence of permanent structures. That’s a significant conclusion in itself, but it becomes even more significant in biblical archaeology, because if that’s true of Edom, it can also be true of the united monarchy of Israel. Biblical skeptics point out that there are no significant structures corresponding to the time in question. But one plausible explanation could be that most Israelites simply lived in tents, because they were a nation of nomads. In fact, that is how the Bible describes them—as a tribal alliance moving out of the desert and into the land of Canaan, settling down only over time. (This is sometimes obscured in Bible translations. In the Book of Kings, for example, after the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, some English versions record that they “went to their homes, joyful and glad.” What the Hebrew actually says is they went to their “tents.”)
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
I seem to recall this saying tents, but I could be wrong. I must have been using a better translation.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's quite a long piece but a good read. I've excerpted parts below.The headline is click bait but the discussion to me is useful. I've noted how translation can cause issues where "tents" in Hebrew was translated as "homes" - a big big difference as it turns out. The real headline is

An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy


The site had already been conclusively dated by an earlier expedition that had uncovered the ruins of a temple dedicated to an Egyptian goddess, linking the site to the empire of the pharaohs, the great power to the south.

...
the dig at the Faynan copper mines, which were also active around 1000 B.C., was already producing evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris. At Timna, too, the sophistication of the people was obvious, in the remains of intense industry that can still be seen strewn around Slaves’ Hill: the tons of slag, the sherds of ceramic smelting furnaces and the tuyères, discarded clay nozzles of the leather bellows, which the smelter, on his knees, would have pumped to fuel the flames. These relics are 3,000 years old,
...
Having started out interested in paleomagnetism, Ben-Yosef stumbled into the emotionally charged field of biblical archaeology. His academic position was at Tel Aviv University, the bastion of the critical approach whose adherents are skeptical of the Bible’s historical accuracy. (On the other side, in this simplified breakdown, are the “conservatives” or “maximalists” associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claim to have identified grand structures from the time of the united Israelite monarchy, supporting the biblical narrative.)
...
Their mining operation, in Ben-Yosef’s interpretation, reveals the workings of an advanced society, despite the absence of permanent structures. That’s a significant conclusion in itself, but it becomes even more significant in biblical archaeology, because if that’s true of Edom, it can also be true of the united monarchy of Israel. Biblical skeptics point out that there are no significant structures corresponding to the time in question. But one plausible explanation could be that most Israelites simply lived in tents, because they were a nation of nomads. In fact, that is how the Bible describes them—as a tribal alliance moving out of the desert and into the land of Canaan, settling down only over time. (This is sometimes obscured in Bible translations. In the Book of Kings, for example, after the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, some English versions record that they “went to their homes, joyful and glad.” What the Hebrew actually says is they went to their “tents.”)

I'm not sure I would agree.

9,000-year-old Neolithic city discovered near Jerusalem, revealing a mystery

Then you would have conflicting statements of Deut 6:11 Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: 12 Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein;

Which I don't think were glorified tents.

For that matter, I believe they went to live in homes they did not build:

Joshua 24:13And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and olive yards which ye planted not do ye eat.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I never quite understood why Biblical historical accuracy...or even inaccuracy, upto a point...was proof of much.

I mean...are we suggesting Tacitus is inerrant?
Unlike the Quran, no-one is suggesting the Bible is the direct word of God, so shouldn't some errors be expected?
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
I never quite understood why Biblical historical accuracy...or even inaccuracy, upto a point...was proof of much.

I mean...are we suggesting Tacitus is inerrant?
Unlike the Quran, no-one is suggesting the Bible is the direct word of God, so shouldn't some errors be expected?

Depends on who you're talking about. For Catholics at least, Pope Leo XIII taught, confirming again the teaching (what had itself been confirmed a ridiculous amount of times): "it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Paragraph 20 here.)

So it depends on who is speaking about the Bible whether or not it'd matter to them.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Depends on who you're talking about. For Catholics at least, Pope Leo XIII taught, confirming again the teaching (what had itself been confirmed a ridiculous amount of times): "it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Paragraph 20 here.)

So it depends on who is speaking about the Bible whether or not it'd matter to them.

Sincerely, thanks for this.
At work so limited time to respond properly, but appreciate the time and clarity.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
..For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."..

Well, that is a political statement.
The infallibility of the Church is a man-made device.
I'm not saying that those responsible might not be sincere.
Nevertheless, it is misleading.

It is yet again claiming that "only our lot have the truth".
I've always been suspicious of blind faith and self-promotion.
I prefer decent logical theology.
In fact, I rely on it !
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Is the Bible historically accurate? It depends upon how one defines "accurate". Is it without flaw? No, there are quite a few examples of how the Old Testament got it wrong. But that does not mean that it is all wrong. A finding like this one is interesting, but not surprising. It would be as foolish to claim that the Bible got everything wrong as it would be to claim that the Bible got everything right.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It's quite a long piece but a good read. I've excerpted parts below.The headline is click bait but the discussion to me is useful. I've noted how translation can cause issues where "tents" in Hebrew was translated as "homes" - a big big difference as it turns out. The real headline is

An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy


The site had already been conclusively dated by an earlier expedition that had uncovered the ruins of a temple dedicated to an Egyptian goddess, linking the site to the empire of the pharaohs, the great power to the south.

...
the dig at the Faynan copper mines, which were also active around 1000 B.C., was already producing evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris. At Timna, too, the sophistication of the people was obvious, in the remains of intense industry that can still be seen strewn around Slaves’ Hill: the tons of slag, the sherds of ceramic smelting furnaces and the tuyères, discarded clay nozzles of the leather bellows, which the smelter, on his knees, would have pumped to fuel the flames. These relics are 3,000 years old,
...
Having started out interested in paleomagnetism, Ben-Yosef stumbled into the emotionally charged field of biblical archaeology. His academic position was at Tel Aviv University, the bastion of the critical approach whose adherents are skeptical of the Bible’s historical accuracy. (On the other side, in this simplified breakdown, are the “conservatives” or “maximalists” associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claim to have identified grand structures from the time of the united Israelite monarchy, supporting the biblical narrative.)
...
Their mining operation, in Ben-Yosef’s interpretation, reveals the workings of an advanced society, despite the absence of permanent structures. That’s a significant conclusion in itself, but it becomes even more significant in biblical archaeology, because if that’s true of Edom, it can also be true of the united monarchy of Israel. Biblical skeptics point out that there are no significant structures corresponding to the time in question. But one plausible explanation could be that most Israelites simply lived in tents, because they were a nation of nomads. In fact, that is how the Bible describes them—as a tribal alliance moving out of the desert and into the land of Canaan, settling down only over time. (This is sometimes obscured in Bible translations. In the Book of Kings, for example, after the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, some English versions record that they “went to their homes, joyful and glad.” What the Hebrew actually says is they went to their “tents.”)
Ironically, it was just yesterday that one of the professors mentioned Ben-Yosef's view. He summarized it as: "You guys (=typical archeologists) simply aren't seeing them (=various bronze-age nomadic ethnicities)!"
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Interestingly, this is also the same person who thinks that camels first arrived in Canaan in the 10th century or something like that.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I never quite understood why Biblical historical accuracy...or even inaccuracy, upto a point...was proof of much.

I mean...are we suggesting Tacitus is inerrant?
Unlike the Quran, no-one is suggesting the Bible is the direct word of God, so shouldn't some errors be expected?
Only errors in understanding it.
2 Timothy 3:16
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
That could be the problem. Just look at how many Christians misinterpret the verse that you linked. It does not say or even imply that the Bible is accurate.
2 Timothy 3:16 may not say that directly, but the implication is certainly there when taken in cconjunction with Titus 1:2.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It's quite a long piece but a good read. I've excerpted parts below.The headline is click bait but the discussion to me is useful. I've noted how translation can cause issues where "tents" in Hebrew was translated as "homes" - a big big difference as it turns out. The real headline is

An Archaeological Dig Reignites the Debate Over the Old Testament’s Historical Accuracy


The site had already been conclusively dated by an earlier expedition that had uncovered the ruins of a temple dedicated to an Egyptian goddess, linking the site to the empire of the pharaohs, the great power to the south.

...
the dig at the Faynan copper mines, which were also active around 1000 B.C., was already producing evidence for an organized Edomite kingdom, such as advanced metallurgical tools and debris. At Timna, too, the sophistication of the people was obvious, in the remains of intense industry that can still be seen strewn around Slaves’ Hill: the tons of slag, the sherds of ceramic smelting furnaces and the tuyères, discarded clay nozzles of the leather bellows, which the smelter, on his knees, would have pumped to fuel the flames. These relics are 3,000 years old,
...
Having started out interested in paleomagnetism, Ben-Yosef stumbled into the emotionally charged field of biblical archaeology. His academic position was at Tel Aviv University, the bastion of the critical approach whose adherents are skeptical of the Bible’s historical accuracy. (On the other side, in this simplified breakdown, are the “conservatives” or “maximalists” associated with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claim to have identified grand structures from the time of the united Israelite monarchy, supporting the biblical narrative.)
...
Their mining operation, in Ben-Yosef’s interpretation, reveals the workings of an advanced society, despite the absence of permanent structures. That’s a significant conclusion in itself, but it becomes even more significant in biblical archaeology, because if that’s true of Edom, it can also be true of the united monarchy of Israel. Biblical skeptics point out that there are no significant structures corresponding to the time in question. But one plausible explanation could be that most Israelites simply lived in tents, because they were a nation of nomads. In fact, that is how the Bible describes them—as a tribal alliance moving out of the desert and into the land of Canaan, settling down only over time. (This is sometimes obscured in Bible translations. In the Book of Kings, for example, after the Israelites celebrated Solomon’s dedication of the Jerusalem Temple, some English versions record that they “went to their homes, joyful and glad.” What the Hebrew actually says is they went to their “tents.”)

I guess the people had come from their houses all over Israel to Jerusalem and lived there for a while in tents.
In Biblical archaeology the truth is what the majority (the skeptics) say, even if it is wrong.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I never quite understood why Biblical historical accuracy...or even inaccuracy, upto a point...was proof of much.

I mean...are we suggesting Tacitus is inerrant?
Unlike the Quran, no-one is suggesting the Bible is the direct word of God, so shouldn't some errors be expected?

The historical accuracy of the Bible says something about it's accuracy in other things it says.
If the Bible is lying about the basic historical events then it is plain that the miraculous ones which are in and about that history, are lies also.
It is that "up to a point" which is important.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The historical accuracy of the Bible says something about it's accuracy in other things it says.
If the Bible is lying about the basic historical events then it is plain that the miraculous ones which are in and about that history, are lies also.
It is that "up to a point" which is important.

Well...I get that point, but I don't think it's so binary when talking about 2000 year old documents.
Not to repeat myself, but do you think Tacitus is lying?
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
The historical accuracy of the Bible says something about it's accuracy in other things it says.
If the Bible is lying about the basic historical events then it is plain that the miraculous ones which are in and about that history, are lies also.
It is that "up to a point" which is important.
So there cannot be any error whatsoever in any statement on its 1000-odd pages, and if there is then literally everything in the Bible is only lies and nothing but lies?

That's an incredibly defeatist approach to both faith and historical accuracy, if I may say so.
 
Top