Is the Moabite Stone historical support for the Bible?

[Wenlok]

The Moabite stone refrences 2 Kings 3, but from a different perspective.
So does that mean the Bible is historically accurate? No.

The Tablet does tell the story of Moab, but shows that the Isrealites were the insitgators. Capturing a city, a refusing to leave peacefully. Moab obviously being the bronze age king he is, took up arms and started attacking their walls and cities. Amd taking woman as human sacrifices.

According to the Bible, Moab made some alliances, and used Divine intervention to win the war. No such reference is found in the stele. The Israelites say he killed his son, they got digusted and left. No reference in the stele.

The Christian defence is to say he was hiding and embarrassment, but its clear his tablet fills in more holes than the other stories, and he’s perfectly fine with admitting he sacrificed woman to the god.

Its clear the Israelites are the ones hiding history, and the Bible just copied whatever story they told.

What do you think?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Having outside sources for an event in history helps confirm that the event happened. However, I would not put much stock in the details of either. Since it was written about by both sides, it is safe to say that it happened, but trying to pars the details of what exactly happened past that is pointless.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's another one of those intriguing artifacts which nearly all Biblical scholars believe is authentic - and just so happens to corroborate that which they already believed - while nearly all secular scholars consider it a forgery.