K
KWR_1
Guest
I was watching a historian on a TV channel discussing the Bible and she stated that King David never existed. Is there any independent evidence that King David actually existed, IOW outside of the Bible?
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
What is the historian’s evidence to back up her claim that King David never existed?
A
asd72
Guest
There is an article from National Geographic Magazine called ‘David & Solomon Kings of Controversy’. A 2010 article about latest archeological information. Really good!
Sorry can’t work out how to post link using my phone, you will have to Google it.
Sorry can’t work out how to post link using my phone, you will have to Google it.
P
PeterGStanley
Guest
I was watching a show the other day that said they had found artifacts that had the name Goliath.
Friday, November 11, 2005 JERUSALEM (AP) — Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine’s name, a find they claimed lends historical credence to the Bible’s tale of David’s battle with the giant.
Friday, November 11, 2005 JERUSALEM (AP) — Archaeologists digging at the purported biblical home of Goliath have unearthed a shard of pottery bearing an inscription of the Philistine’s name, a find they claimed lends historical credence to the Bible’s tale of David’s battle with the giant.
meltzerboy
New member
Certain historians and archaeologists have had their doubts about the existence of David, Solomon, Moses, and Abraham, among other figures of the Hebrew Bible, due to a reported lack of evidence based on alleged writings (in the case of the “Psalms” of David, which may have been composed by numerous authors) and alleged inscriptions, which do not pass archaeological scrutiny. Others believe David did exist but was nowhere near the majestic King described in the Bible. Since I’m not a historian or archaeologist, I don’t have knowledge obtained from first-hand discovery and analysis of documents and artifacts. But, as I’ve always maintained, belief in the veracity of Scripture and religion generally is more a matter of “rational” faith than historical evidence.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
The Tel Dan stele discovered in 1993 reads as follows:
According to the the very skeptical Israeli archeologist Israel Finkelstein, “this is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty less than a hundred years after the reign of David’s son Solomon. The fact that Judah (or perhaps its capital, Jerusalem) is referred to with only a mention of its ruling house is clear evidence that the reputation of David was not a literary invention of a much later period.” That quote comes from page 129 of his book, The Bible Unearthed. He seems to think that there was an historical David but he did not rule over a united dynasty and was more of a chieftain ruling over a largely undeveloped Judah. Although some scholars have tried to dispute the validity of the translation of the Tel Dan stele, I think most archeologists are convinced the above translation is accurate and it references the House of David about 150 years after his purported reign. I find the idea that a totally fictional king could take the place of the real founding king of a dynasty in such a short period time absolutely ridiculous. It seems like an extreme and unnecessary skepticism.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
If you want an overview of what the archeological evidence can tell us about King David, Finkelstein has another book about that subject: David and Solomon. I do warn you that this book does not treat the Bible as an accurate historical record (the opposite, in fact) and instead focuses on the archeological evidence. I think Finkelstein’s view is the mainstream archeological view. It seems quite clear that there is very good reason to believe David was an historical figure and little reason to conclude he is purely legendary.
Both books I’ve mentioned were co-authored with another archeologist, Neil Asher Silberman.
Both books I’ve mentioned were co-authored with another archeologist, Neil Asher Silberman.
C
CountrySteve
Guest
if something is said now a days that controversies the Bible/Church i tend not to believe it even if its some historian remember satan is tricky
T
TimothyH
Guest
There was a show on the the History Channel last night called “Angels and Aliens”.
In it some college professor expert was saying that because an omnipitent God would not have the need to test Abraham’s faith, he had to conclude that it wasn’t God’s angel (Genesis 22:11) who commanded Abraham not to kill Issac but “What if perhaps, it was an extraterrestrial being?” Then they showed pictures of astronauts next to icons of angels with halos, as if to suggest that halos are really space helmets.
I would totally believe it (
) if it wasn’t for the fact that the expert is invariably the same 30 year old British guy in desperate need of a hair cut.
-Tim-
In it some college professor expert was saying that because an omnipitent God would not have the need to test Abraham’s faith, he had to conclude that it wasn’t God’s angel (Genesis 22:11) who commanded Abraham not to kill Issac but “What if perhaps, it was an extraterrestrial being?” Then they showed pictures of astronauts next to icons of angels with halos, as if to suggest that halos are really space helmets.
I would totally believe it (
) if it wasn’t for the fact that the expert is invariably the same 30 year old British guy in desperate need of a hair cut.-Tim-
C
Crumpy
Guest
the NGC program hit its target, in making you doubt your faith.
F
Fidelis
Guest
N
NHInsider
Guest
Until the discoveries of the 1990s it was very fashionable to dismiss the Biblical accounts of David and Solomon as epics with the same historical validity as those of King Arthur or Beowulf - which is to say, you can’t say for certain that there wasn’t a military hero back in the mists of time whose story was embellished into a National Epic, but it’s probably just a tale spun around a fire.
Since the archaeologists have started unearthing things that corroborate the Biblical accounts, those skeptics who have built their careers on proving the Bible wrong have had to come up with other approaches to denying the Biblical references.
In general, it is safe to assume that the History Channel will highlight anything that casts doubt on tradition . . . it’s their stock in trade (how else to get anyone to watch?)
Since the archaeologists have started unearthing things that corroborate the Biblical accounts, those skeptics who have built their careers on proving the Bible wrong have had to come up with other approaches to denying the Biblical references.
In general, it is safe to assume that the History Channel will highlight anything that casts doubt on tradition . . . it’s their stock in trade (how else to get anyone to watch?)
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Pretty cool
Z
zz912
Guest
The secular world has been trying since the time of Christ to deny the reality and hstoricity of the Bible and Christianity. They try their best to deny the existence of almost everyone in the Bible. And they keep at it until some archaelogical evidence comes forth to blow up their theory. And then they try again.
A more recent one was Pontius Pilate, until they found an inscription with his name on it.
A more recent one was Pontius Pilate, until they found an inscription with his name on it.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
The Tel Dan inscription is, as far as I can tell, pretty well accepted as referencing the House of David. The Mesha stele, dating to around the same time as the Tel Dan stele, might also reference the House of David. The French scholar Andre Lemaire claims that there is a reference to the House of David on it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele#Translation
G
garysibio
Guest
There is not a lot of archaeological evidence for David’s existence but there is some and that means the guy who denied it is not up to date with his facts. (The evidence has only turned up in the past decade as far as I know.)
Unless something has turned up very recently and I haven’t heard of it yet, there is no evidence outside of the Bible for Solomon’s temple. The evidence that has been brought forward has been shown to have been forgeries. (I’m not saying there was no temple. There was. There’s just no evidence to prove it apart from the Bible which is good enough for me.)
The Bible has proven itself to be a very accurate source of history. The “historian” shows his bigotry by not being willing to accept the Bible as evidence that David existed. Also, the historian should know better than to make a statement like he did. Even if there was not a single shred of evidence of David’s existence, even in the Bible, it would not prove that David didn’t exist. His statement is only valid if he is claiming to be omniscient.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
This is a very good point. There are many people, believed to be historical, for which we have only one or two contemporary or near-contemporary sources that mention them. Only when we discuss Biblical figures like David are there TV programs that dispute the available evidence and make baseless assertions like “David never existed.”
A
asd72
Guest
- Status