Scholars today question the authenticity of the accounts in the bible as there is not a lot of archaeological evidence to support the stories in the bible. Noah's ark is an example: how could Noah possibly fit two of EVERY animal on just one ark? Was King David's kingdom really a kingdom? Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman reject the idea that David ruled over a united monarchy, suggesting instead that he ruled only as a chieftain over the southern kingdom of Judah, much smaller than the northern kingdom of Israel at that time. Critical Bible scholarship holds that the biblical account of David's rise to power is a political apology—an answer to contemporary charges against him, of his involvement in murders and regicide. The list goes on. I was wondering, how did the fathers interpret the stories, are we supposed to believe that all of the stories are historically accurate? and if they are not historically accurate, what impact does that have on our faith?