Old Testament?

[12th Doctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Understanding current OT scholarship (by serious intellectuals) goes a long way towards helping with the dilemma you are facing.  That article helps explain.

[12th Doctor]

Old notions of how we got the OT and where exactly it comes from are almost certainly incorrect and, ironically, the "atheist" perspective is a decent explanation, though not the conclusion they come to as a result.  Moses almost certainly had no hand in the actual authorship of the Pentateuch, even if one does accept that he referred to himself in the third person, changed writing styles often and seemingly contradicted himself on several occasions, concerning the facts.

[12th Doctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Understanding current OT scholarship (by serious intellectuals) goes a long way towards helping with the dilemma you are facing.  That article helps explain.

Soulty, is that what you subscribe to in terms of authorship?

Also, what is the standard Catholic line on the matter currently?

I think it makes the most sense.

As for the "Catholic" line, as far as I know, the Catholic line has always been that the OT is divinely inspired (as with NT), but whether or not it is 100% historically accurate is in debate.  The hierarchy, for their part has basically taken the position that either/or is fine, but the intellectual set tend toward notions, such as the one I presented.

In terms of creation, the Catholic position is that evolution doesn't contradict the Bible, but if you want to believe in the creation story, that's fine.

[12th Doctor]

Even the degree to which we should assume the OT was even intended to be historically acurate is debatable.

[12th Doctor]

Even the degree to which we should assume the OT was even intended to be historically acurate is debatable.

I have to jump in again here.  I have a degree in Classics from Uni - I spend some time studying Old Testament from a basic academic standpoint - (at a non-religious uni, for the record).  It's completley false to say that the OT is historically inaccurate - and most secular historians even use its accuracy to timetable events from that period.  It's one of the few written records the world has in many cases for certain periods of time and rules of various kings. 

Of course, archaeology and classical study cannot always answer that question of "is the OT 100% true" . Nothing material remains from Elijah’s ascension into heaven, for example. Therefore, if anyone is to ask archaeology to “prove” that the entire Bible is true or false, we are faced with the fact that archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the Bible’s validity. However, even though it cannot conclusively prove the Bible’s veracity in every instance, archaeology can provide important pieces of the past that consistently verify the Bible’s historical and factual accuracy.
 
And although I could go on and bore you with history and findings of "bullae" (or small clay tablets), I thought it might be worthwhile to mention the Moabite Stone. This was considered a great find by the archeology community - more can be found on it by searching.  But bascially, the written inscription on the stone provides a piece of outstanding evidence that verifies OT accuracy. Mesha, had the stone cut in c. 850 B.C. to relate his numerous conquests and his reacquisition of certain territories that were controlled by Israel.  The Mesha stele cites Omri as the king of Israel, just as 1 Kings 16:21-28 indicates. Furthermore, it mentions Ahab, Omri’s son, in close connection with the Moabites, as does 2 Kings 3:4-6. In addition, both the stele and 2 Kings 3:4-6 list Mesha as King of Moab. Later in the inscription, the stele further names the Israelite tribe of Gad, and the Israelite God, Yahweh. While the references to the Israelite kings are quite notable in and of themselves, this reference to Yahweh is one of the few that have been found outside ancient Palestine.

Another famous artifact from Classical Study is the Cyrus Cylinder.  Cyrus, King of the Medo-Persian Empire, is among the most important foreign rulers of the Israelite nation. In fact, many Old Testament prophecies revolve around this monarch. The prophet Isaiah documented that the Babylonian Empire would fall to the Medes and the Persians (Isaiah 13; 21:1-10). Not only did Isaiah detail the particular empire to which the Babylonians would fall, but he also called Cyrus by name (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-5). Amazingly, Isaiah’s prophecy was made roughly 150 years before Cyrus was born (Isaiah prophesied in about 700 B.C.; Cyrus took the city of Babylon in 539 B.C.). To add to Cyrus’ significance, Isaiah predicted that Cyrus would act as the Lord’s “shepherd.” In fact, Isaiah recorded these words of the Lord concerning Cyrus: “And he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be built,’ and to the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid’ ” (Isaiah 44:28).

Look there are lots of other examples from acheology.  A simple google search also produced this article:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557124/Tiny-tablet-provides-proof-for-Old-Testament.html

The individual books of the Old Testament were written with a different objective in mind, (a faith based, rooted in a belief in God) which does not mean that the narratives in the Old Testament have no historical value. They are recognized, even by secular historians, as one of the most reliable sources available for reconstructing the history of the time and for the Hebrew people. 

Of course.  I was referring only to certain writings in which is seems that the authors intent was more to relate a specific teaching or truth to the reader, rather than gunning for 100% historical accuracy, or what was believed to be the actual history.

There are clearly writings intended to relate real history, and those have always proven rather accurate.  But they are not close to being the only writings contained in the OT.

[12th Doctor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Understanding current OT scholarship (by serious intellectuals) goes a long way towards helping with the dilemma you are facing.  That article helps explain.

Excellent!  Soulty, you continue to enrich our religious discussion here.  You rock!

Your praise is often times so exalting that I often times can't help but to think its sarcasm.