The original title of this submission until it was changed was "Is the Old Testament historically accurate". My response was to that title, no it isn't historically accurate.
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The article is obviously talking about historical accuracy in the context of archaeology and really in the context of a specific archeological dig. It's not about whether God created the earth in 7 days or put a bunch of animals on a boat.
You trying to weaponize the guidelines is an abuse of the community and against the spirit and purpose of the rules.
> fact is not provocative at all.
There are infinitely many facts. They don't select themselves—humans do that—and often they do it in a highly provocative way. That's why "I'm just stating facts" is one of the classic troll tropes.
For example, if one middle schooler points out the acne on another kid's face, that's both factual and provocative. I've used that analogy before. Recently I ran across an old comment by pg where he made a similar point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6539403.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...