Archaeological dig reignites debate over the Old Testament’s historical accuracy
The tent theory makes a lot of sense.  Prior to Solomon&#x27;s temple, the temple was a tent, and is recorded as being a tent for hundreds of years.<p>A lot of scholars used to insist that the Bible was obviously not historical because it talked about this thing called the Assyrian empire that had conquered the fertile crescent, and everyone knew that empire never existed.<p>And then in the mid 19th century archeologists unearthed extensive evidence of the Assyrian empire.<p>Interestingly, records from that empire concur on some of the same events in the Bible.  For example, Sennacherib is mentioned as the leader of Assyria who conquered most of Judah (the southern kingdom of Isreal - he had already conquered the northern one).  See, for example, Isaiah 37.<p>From an unearthed clay tablet:<p>&quot;But as for Hezekiah, the Jew, who did not bow to my yoke, forty-six of his strong walled towns, and innumerable smaller villages in their neighbourhood, I besieged and conquered by stamping down earth ramps and then by bring up battering rams, by the assault of foot soldiers, by breaches, by tunnelling and military engineering operations.<p>I made to come out from them 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, innumerable horses, mules, donkeys, camels, large and small cattle, and counted them as spoils of war. He himself I shut up like a caged bird within Jerusalem his royal city. As for Hezekiah, the awful splendour of my lordship overwhelmed him.&quot;<p>This coincides with the account in the Bible.<p>Note that Hezekiah is a descendant of Solomon - less than 200 years separate them.