Is this in the Bible

[Medicine*Woman]

Two things argue against King David being historical :
1. History
2. Archeology

There is no history or archeology supporting King David (there are quite a few forgeries though),

The Bytdwd inscription does not clearly say
"House (meaning dynasty) of David", but rather it may say more like "Chief's House".

What history and archeology we have found does NOT match the bible stories.

If YOU believe King David is historical, then YOU better provide some evidence for his existance.

There is none.

Any modern biblical scholar or reference work, such as :
* the Jerome commentary
* Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?"
* earlyjewishwritings.com
etc.

Among modern scholars, it is commonly accepted that David and Solomon did not exist.

Faithful believers are the last to know.

Iasion

*************
M*W: I agree that David and Solomon didn't exist as historical characters, but there is some archeological evidence that their mythological characters were based on Tuthmosis III (David) and Amenhotep III (Solomon). This would mean that these pharaohs who were renamed for story telling purposes only were great-grandfather (David) and his great grandson (Solomon). In other words, the bible couldn't even get the myths straight! What the bible doesn't tell us is that, although all these characters may be mythological, the timeline would have it that Moses (Amenhotep IV and/or Akhenaten) would have been Solomon's mythological grandson.

 

[Iasion]

This is rubbish. Try typing in "King David + Archeology evidence" instead of the opposite into www.ask.com

I have.
I have studied the subject in depth.
There is no archeological evidence for David.
You conspicuously failed to provide any.
Because there is none.
It is clear you have never studied any of this.
You are just reprating what you heard in church.

If YOU believe there is, then YOU cite the evidence.
YOUR repeated failure to produce any evidence just confirms there is none.

I can confidently predict that your next post will contain NO evidence for David's existence.

But it will surely contain more insults and preaching -
because that's all you've got.

Reading a few books on how history works is a good start too.

Indeed it is.
I have read many.
It doesn't appear that you have, however.
Perhaps you should do so instead of slinging insults in a vain attempt to hide the fact you have evidence for your claims.

Right, read some books from the other side of the argument even if it doesn't sit well with you.

I have read many.
Sadly, it appears all you have is childish insults.

Which scholars?

Ehrman, Brown, Fitzmyer, Aland, Crossan, Metzger - all the modern experts. But of course, you have no idea who these people even ARE, do you?

True. As a believer what do you believe in?

Belief?

We are talking about facts and evidence.
I support what the facts show.

And what the facts show is quite clear :
* the bible writers thought the world was flat
* King David was a myth (along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and Solomon.)


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

M*W: I agree that David and Solomon didn't exist as historical characters, but there is some archeological evidence that their mythological characters were based on Tuthmosis III (David) and Amenhotep III (Solomon).

No there isn't.

It's just a crackpot theory.


Iasion

 

[davewhite04]

I have.
I have studied the subject in depth.
There is no archeological evidence for David.
You conspicuously failed to provide any.
Because there is none.
It is clear you have never studied any of this.
You are just reprating what you heard in church.

If YOU believe there is, then YOU cite the evidence.
YOUR repeated failure to produce any evidence just confirms there is none.

I can confidently predict that your next post will contain NO evidence for David's existence.

But it will surely contain more insults and preaching -
because that's all you've got.




Indeed it is.
I have read many.
It doesn't appear that you have, however.
Perhaps you should do so instead of slinging insults in a vain attempt to hide the fact you have evidence for your claims.




I have read many.
Sadly, it appears all you have is childish insults.




Ehrman, Brown, Fitzmyer, Aland, Crossan, Metzger - all the modern experts. But of course, you have no idea who these people even ARE, do you?




Belief?

We are talking about facts and evidence.
I support what the facts show.

And what the facts show is quite clear :
* the bible writers thought the world was flat
* King David was a myth (along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and Solomon.)


Iasion

So which translation of the Moabite Stone inscription do you adhere to?

I presume it's not Lemaire so why is that?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

No there isn't.

It's just a crackpot theory.

Iasion

*************
M*W: Maybe I should have said "loosely based." I agree these biblical characters didn't exist. In fact, there are two conflicting stories (myths) of the fictional David. In one, he's a warrior. In the other, he's a king, and they are not the same fictional character.

Obviously, people who believe these fictional characters are real, haven't read anything historical or archeological.

M*W's Friendly Atheist Fact (FAQ) for the Day:

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ George Bernard Shaw

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: Maybe I should have said "loosely based." I agree these biblical characters didn't exist. In fact, there are two conflicting stories (myths) of the fictional David. In one, he's a warrior. In the other, he's a king, and they are not the same fictional character.

What documents are these?

 

[davewhite04]

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ George Bernard Shaw

What great truths are these?

 

[Iasion]

So which translation of the Moabite Stone inscription do you adhere to?

You mean the Mesha Stele?
The Moabite Stone is the old 19th century name for it.

Like I said above,
it refers to the "house of the chief".
The word "dwd" meant chief in those days, and The word is not even complete, 1 letter is missing. The term "bytdwd" is written as a compound which indicates it is not a proper name.

It refers to someone living in a chief's house.
No evidence for David.


Iasion

 

[davewhite04]

You mean the Mesha Stele?
The Moabite Stone is the old 19th century name for it.

Like I said above,
it refers to the "house of the chief".
The word "dwd" meant chief in those days, and The word is not even complete, 1 letter is missing. The term "bytdwd" is written as a compound which indicates it is not a proper name.

It refers to someone living in a chief's house.
No evidence for David.


Iasion

it refers to the "house of the chief"

Provide proof.

A letter is missing and no letter other than "D" makes sense of the complete translation, unless you can prove otherwise.

Please provide a reference to this "House of the chief" claim.

 

[Fortuna]

DaveWhite.

“ Originally Posted by Fortuna
The book of Job is not so very old. ”

You seem to be an expert so can you provide me with some evidence as to the age of the book of Job?

Here are some clues to dating the book ;

- They used greek loan words in the book. Specifically, the names of Orion and Pleiaedes for constellation and some knowledge of those greek stories. This suggests the book could not be any older than 3rd or 4th century BCE.

- The book of job is part of the Ketuvim "כתובים " meaning "Writings" or "Hagiographa." This section of Tankh (what Xtians call th New testament) was not formally recognized until after th Roman Jewish war.

- We also get some clues using the names they use to refer to the lands around them. Job tells how his flocks were exposed to Chaldeans, the tribes between Syria and the Euphrates (1:17), and in another direction to attacks from the Sabaeans (1:15). One of his friends was from Teman in Edom (2:11). The name "Uz" was connected with Edom in Lamentations 4:21.
The most plausible locationwould be east of Israel and northeast of Edom, in what is now North Arabia. The most probably time of writing would thus be the 4th century BCE at the least. Some people think this makes it very old. However, the was it is written is very similiar to the same phrase as written in Daniel. That means it must be close to or around the second century BCE.

A first century aramaic targum has been found that has a commentary on Job. While some suggest this makes it old, it acutally helps very little with dating.


Also, the use of the word "késịtah for a piece of silver at 42:11 does not help their case. We find that same word in the DSS copy of 1 Enoch, which we know is 2nd century BCE.


Consider also the character of the book, the use of the "shiatan" or adversary who is making a wager with god. (where Christians get their word for "satan"). This sort of theology is not consistent with the Torah, where god himself is responsible for evil. Given the Shiatan, it has a certain specific sort of angelology to it. This sort of thing developed well after the Babylonian captivity.


Medicine Woman - I read some of your links, and while I agree that it could be based on some earlier text, or that what we have could be an update of an older text, this book as we have it could not be any older than 3rd or 4th century BCE. Could it have been rewritten at that time ? Possibly, but for me the evidence is not convincing.

But, for me it is the greek astrologic loan words that gives it away, calling the constellations by greek names and knowing what they mean. Thus, the author knew those greek stories. Secondly, that it did not enter the Jewish canon until after Christ reenforces that for me.

Thus given the book as we have it, I do not agree with some of your links.

Also, the story reads like it might belong to the Judeann Sadducees, much like Ecclesiastes. The theme of this book is consistent with their particular theology.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

But I really like your Pagan style !

 

[davewhite04]

Hey,

DaveWhite.
Here are some clues to dating the book ;

- They used greek loan words in the book. Specifically, the names of Orion and Pleiaedes for constellation and some knowledge of those greek stories. This suggests the book could not be any older than 3rd or 4th century BCE.


It’s a question of who got this knowledge first, and you cannot assume it was the Greeks. It is the same with the apparent parallels with some Greek stories.


- The book of job is part of the Ketuvim "כתובים " meaning "Writings" or "Hagiographa." This section of Tankh (what Xtians call th New testament) was not formally recognized until after th Roman Jewish war.


It is part of the Christian Old Testament.


- We also get some clues using the names they use to refer to the lands around them. Job tells how his flocks were exposed to Chaldeans, the tribes between Syria and the Euphrates (1:17), and in another direction to attacks from the Sabaeans (1:15). One of his friends was from Teman in Edom (2:11). The name "Uz" was connected with Edom in Lamentations 4:21.
The most plausible locationwould be east of Israel and northeast of Edom, in what is now North Arabia. The most probably time of writing would thus be the 4th century BCE at the least. Some people think this makes it very old. However, the was it is written is very similiar to the same phrase as written in Daniel. That means it must be close to or around the second century BCE.


You may be correct regarding Arabia, but then you go on to establishing the writings at around 4th BCE at least, why or how?


Also, the use of the word "késịtah for a piece of silver at 42:11 does not help their case. We find that same word in the DSS copy of 1 Enoch, which we know is 2nd century BCE.


"késịtah is first mentioned in Genesis 33:19, it is mentioned in Josh 24:32 and as you pointed out in Job 42:11. Can you provide the passage in Daniel?


Consider also the character of the book, the use of the "shiatan" or adversary who is making a wager with god. (where Christians get their word for "satan"). This sort of theology is not consistent with the Torah, where god himself is responsible for evil. Given the Shiatan, it has a certain specific sort of angelology to it. This sort of thing developed well after the Babylonian captivity.


I can't see your logic here. Are you saying that the Jews don't believe that Satan (or any other angelic being) had any involvement with God and the earth until well after the Babylonian captivity? If so, when do you or they believe the involvement begun?

 

[Reiku]

I don't agree.

I do beleive these characters existed.