1 Kings 8:4; 2 Chronicles 5:5
When all the elders of Israel arrived, the priests took up the ark, and they brought up the Ark of the LORD and the Tent of meeting and all the sacred furnishings in it.
We know that the Mosaic Tent of Meeting was at the town of Gibeon during the reign of David and at the beginning of Solomon's reign.
2 Chronicles 1:3-4
...and Solomon and the whole assembly went to the high place at Gibeon, for God's Tent of Meeting was there, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the desert. Now David had brought up the ark of the God from Kiriath Jearim to the place he had prepared for it, because he had pitched a tent for it in Jerusalem.
But when it came time for Solomon's Temple to take precedence as the place of worship, we were told that the Ark, the furnishing, and the Tent of Meeting were installed—brought up—there. But these were "brought up" from Zion, the city of David (1 Kings 8:2).
So was it really David's "tent" the one that was carried up to the Temple, not the Tent at Gibeon? Even though these verses used the wording "Temple of Meeting", which was oft referred to the Mosaic tent, could it also refer to David's Tent of worship? The Ark and Tent are mentioned in the same sentence together as being brought up from Zion, so it seems to lend to this interpretation.
David's "Tent" is mentioned in Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:16, so it seemed to be quite important in the redemptive plan of God. The Apostles used it as a pre-figure, not the Temple of Solomon, for including the nations (Gentiles) in the Church. Just as the Mosaic Tent was important in the Old Testament Exodus, David's tent was important in the New. Did then, the introduction of David's Tent make the Gibeon Tent obsolete, and ready to be destroyed (Though ceremoniously, out of respect, just as worn-out sacred scrolls are respectfully destroyed in the synagogue culture.)?
Out with the old, in with the New! (Though both serve as important instruments in the history of salvation.)