How accurate do we know the Old Testament to be historically?
I would like to know about the accusations against the Bible.
1. The fallacies and inconsistancies that people claim are there…
2. How accurate do we know the Old Testament to be historically speaking.
It is impossible for me to answer the first question because it is too broad to address. What I need from you is to give me a particular claim of fallacy or inconsistency that I can respond to. Please pick that fallacy and/or that inconsistency which you have found to be the most compelling and I will quite happily answer those particular questions. My generic response is that there are NO fallacies and NO inconsistencies in the Bible properly interpreted and understood. In the meantime, I do have about a 40 page chapter on this question in my book “Field Guide for Christian Apologetics.” It addresses a couple of dozen of the most commonly claimed fallacies and inconsistencies in the Bible. The book can be purchased at www.ipibooks.com.
On the second question, I will say this (and, of course, back it up with evidence!): The Old Testament is by far the most reliable book of history of the ancient world. In fact, there is not even a good candidate for the second most reliable historical text. We obviously cannot prove that everything in the Old Testament happened from other sources. This is because we simply do not have enough other reliable sources. I cannot prove that David fought Goliath from other sources, for example. However, without a single exception, whenever the historical claims and information in the Bible has been compared to known facts, either from archaeological discovery or from reasonable inference from other histories, the Old Testament has proved to be reliable. Finds such as the Tel Dan inscription, the Ebla Tablets, the Moabite Stone, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Taylor Prism, the Siloam Inscription, the Tel el Amarna letters, the Nuzi Tablets, the Behuistan Inscription and many more have consistently supported the reliability of the Old Testament. For many years, historians doubted the existence of the biblical city of Nineveh. Then they dug up the city of Nineveh. Historians questioned the reality of the Hittites. Then they discovered Hattusha, the capital of the Hittites. The said David was not a real person. Then they found the Tel Dan inscription which shows this to be a lie. I could go on for dozens of examples. Archaeological digs around the Dead Sea confirm five cities, all destroyed about 2100 BC. A tablet found in Babylon confirms that King Jehoachim was in fact taken there and given special honor. You will find a chapter on this topic in my book “Reasons for Belief” also at www.ipibooks.com, as well as more info on the topic in the power point section of my web site.
I will conclude that the Old Testament is historically a fantastically reliable document. This is part of the evidence for its inspiration. If you read the histories of the Assyrians, the Mayans, the Egyptians and the Greeks, they tend to exaggerate or even fabricate. They also have a hugely biased account, ignoring nearly all mistakes and disasters. The Bible definitely does not follow this pattern. It is chock full of very bad errors and defeats of its leaders. I challenge anyone to produce any ancient history which can hold a candle to the Old Testament as a reliable source of information about the ancient world.