https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

>>965715

Broadly speaking, no part of the Bible is historically accurate.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8584629&postcount=61

The timelins are utterly fucked, virtually everything before the Babylonian exile. For example Moses couldn't have conquered the Holy Land in 2500 BC or whatever the fuck, it goes against virtually everything we have on record.

almost nothing is accurate but much of it is based on real shit

>>965715
The bible is historical hearsay. The events probably occurred in some form, but almost certainly not in the timeline provided and may be inflated.

As for the exodus, I seriously doubt 600,000 men (not including women, children and livestock, so a number closer to 1,500,000 individuals) crossed the Sinai peninsula into cana'an. This is in a period where entire human population on the world is 27 million.

>>965781
of course it's possible but yes doubtful. numbers are almost always inflated in everything throughout history tho. fuck even today we still inflate numbers

File: wavepepe.jpg (232 KB, 1000x1000) Image search: [Google]

232 KB, 1000x1000

I know of several Israelis that were surprised to learn, in university, that there is no historical evidence of Jewish contribution to building the pyramids.

Pretty hilarious, actually.

>>965818
Which is doubly amusing since the Bible never mentions pyramids and puts the enslaved Israelites in Goshen, which is a good trek away from all the famous pyramids.

The Passion on ward is fake, as is Genesis and exodus and just about everything that happened in the Old Testament that the first councils left in the original bible.


In all honesty the bible of today probably has as much in common with the actual texts as the Mormons have in common with the rest of Christianity. The gist is there but a lot of important bits are missing

The vast majority of it. There is no evidence at all that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians.