[HN Gopher] Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?
___________________________________________________________________
Is the Old Testament Historically Accurate?
Author : gmays
Score : 18 points
Date : 2022-01-04 21:25 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Possibly related, but not mentioned:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos#Potential_biblical_conn...
| commandlinefan wrote:
| If nothing else, the old testament is a fascinatingly well-
| preserved look at how people viewed life thousands of years ago.
| Although a lot of things have changed, the nature of human
| conflict and the desire for power haven't.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| I think the most interesting part of the Old Testament is how
| the ancient Israelites justified their war against Canan.
|
| One of the main charges against Canan is that they accused
| Canan of sacrificing children. It's the exact same "think of
| the children" justification used endlessly today.
| sysrpl wrote:
| No it's not.
|
| The Genesis account states that the earth was created, then the
| oceans, then trees and plants, and after all that the sun the
| moon and the stars were created.
|
| The correct historical order is stars existed, then the sun was
| formed, then the earth and moon, then oceans, and finally trees
| and plants.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Actually there are TWO incompatible accounts of creation in
| Genesis, one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2.
|
| Genesis 1: the world initially all water. God has to dry it to
| create land. Genesis 2: the world initially all land. God has
| to add water.
|
| Genesis 1 creation order: water, land, plants, animals, humans
| (male and female at the same time, most reasonable reading is
| _many_ humans all at once). Genesis 2 creation order: land,
| water, Adam alone, plants, animals, Eve alone.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Interesting that your mind immediately goes there. I read the
| title and wondered about the historical accuracy of, say,
| Abraham offering his wife to pharaoh or Solomon killing his
| brother to ascend to the throne. With a handful of exceptions,
| after the part with the Ark, the old testament is at least
| believable.
| katzgrau wrote:
| I was like, pretty sure all those people didn't live 900
| years. I like a lot of the stories and subjective meaning,
| but you kind of have to look past the odd factoids.
| gigel82 wrote:
| rbanffy wrote:
| A tamer version of the title would have prevented 50% of the
| comments at this time.
|
| We can try "new evidence of an advanced society in the time of
| the biblical Solomon" would probably be a better fit.
| ducharmdev wrote:
| Yeah, the final line seems to be far from any kind of "gotcha":
|
| > What Ben-Yosef has produced isn't an argument for or against
| the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own
| profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its
| authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and
| archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly
| that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The
| treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility.
| joshdance wrote:
| Could be. I think the most interesting part of the article is
| that they have identified a limit of archeology. They discovered
| wealthy and powerful groups that don't exist according to
| archeology because they didn't leave behind buildings. The royal
| purple dye was very interesting as well.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Is any historical text from similar time period accurate?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-04 23:00 UTC)