[_ Old Earth _] The creation of light

[lordkalvan]

One must also try to understand the political climate the archaeological endeavors are operating under. There are reasons some don't want anything concerning David or Hebrew antiquity in general to be revealed. The Muslim Waqf for instance bulldozed and paved 6,000 sq ft of the Temple Mount. Many artifacts were clandestinely tossed in garbage dumps and pieces with ancient inscriptions were cut up with a stone cutting saw hidden on the site. Some of this made the news a while back. Nor do I think it prudent to be in a hurry to place a lot of confidence in the opinions of Palestinian archaeologists.
My point is not to discredit genuine and honest skepticism but rather a caution in regard to the possibilities of motives other than archaeological truth.

I wholeheartedly agree with your argument and would only stress that both sides may well have agendas that influence their interpretations of findings. Do not forget that there are factions within Israeli society who seek to legitimize Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by using biblical evidence to support their claims.

 

[lordkalvan]

I note that the Wiki article that you reference discusses at some length the fact that a number of scholars disagree with the conclusions you reference. It certainly remains an interesting and significant archaeological find, however, illustrating the difficulties in interpretation and understanding that abound with such artefacts.

With what do they disagree?
I see no mention of disagreement concerning Ahaziah and Joram but only with the reality of David.

I'm sorry not to have made it clearer that I was referring only to the debate over the interpretation of 'House of David'. On the other hand, my understanding from the Wiki article is that text enclosed by brackets [] is either illegible or assumed. This means that the evidence concerning the existence of the three individuals named is at best equivocal and drawing definite conclusions from it should therefore be approached with caution.

7) riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab]
8) king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
9) of the House of David. And I set [.......................................................]

 

[Rick W]

I wholeheartedly agree with your argument and would only stress that both sides may well have agendas that influence their interpretations of findings. Do not forget that there are factions within Israeli society who seek to legitimize Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands by using biblical evidence to support their claims.

Agreed.

Moving on:

The Mesha Stele
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

In 1994, after examining both the Mesha Stele and the paper squeeze of it in the Louvre Museum, the French scholar André Lemaire reported that line 31 of the Mesha Stele bears the phrase "the house of David" (in Biblical Archaeology Review [May/June 1994], pp. 30-37).[11] Lemaire had to supply one destroyed letter, the first "D" in "[D]avid," to decode the wording. The complete sentence in the latter part of line 31 would then read, "As for Horonen, there lived in it the house of [D]avid," וחורננ. ישב. ב×â€. בת[ד]וד. (Note: square brackets [ ] enclose letters or words that have been supplied where letters were destroyed or were on fragments that are still missing.) Most scholars find that no other letter supplied there yields a reading that makes sense. Baruch Margalit attempted to supply a different letter there: "m," along with several other letters in places after that. The reading that resulted was "Now Horoneyn was occupied at the en[d] of [my pre]decessor['s reign] by [Edom]ites."[12] However, Margalit's reading has failed to attract any significant support in scholarly publications.

In 2001, another French scholar, Pierre Bordreuil, reported (in an essay in French) that he and a few other scholars could not confirm Lemaire's reading of "the house of David" in line 31 of the stele.[13]

Whereas the later mention of the "House of David" on a Tel Dan stele fragment was written by an Aramaean enemy king, this inscription comes from a Moabite enemy of Israel, also boasting of a victory. If Lemaire is right, there are now two early references to David's dynasty, one in the Mesha Stele (mid-9th century) and the other in the Tel Dan Stele (mid-9th to mid-8th century).[14][15]

The identifications of the biblical Mesha, king of Moab, and of the biblical Omri, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, in the Mesha stele are generally accepted by the scholarly community, especially because what is said about them in the narrative of the Mesha stele agrees well with the narrative in the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles.

The identification of David in the Mesha stele, however, remains controversial. This controversy stems partly from the fragmentary state of line 31 of the Mesha stele and partly from a tendency since the 1990s, largely among European scholars, to question or dismiss the historical reliability of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). In Europe, P. R. Davies, Thomas L. Thompson, and Niels P. Lemche show a strong tendency to reject biblical historicity, whereas André Lemaire, K. A. Kitchen, Jens Bruun Kofoed, and other European scholars are exceptions to this tendency. Many scholars lean in one direction or the other but actually occupy the middle ground. In general, North American and Israeli scholars tend to be more willing to accept the identification of the biblical King David in the Mesha stele. The controversy over whether ancient inscriptions confirm the existence of the King David mentioned in the Bible usually focuses less on the Mesha stele and more on the Tel Dan stele.

The Stele is also significant in that it mentions the Hebrew name of God - YHWH. It is thought to be the earliest known reference to the sacred name in any artifact.

Through all this I can't help believe that the evidence will soon be there to confirm David's reality despite the efforts of those who wish to either destroy the evidence or keep it hidden.

 

[lordkalvan]

....Through all this I can't help believe that the evidence will soon be there to confirm David's reality despite the efforts of those who wish to either destroy the evidence or keep it hidden.

I think the likelihood of there having been an historical King David from the 10th Century BCE is high; it is certainly well within the bounds of probable. It is also the case that the evidence available shows continuous occupation of the site of Jerusalem for around 5,000 years. It will be interesting to see how well further confirmed archaeological evidence accords with the biblical account.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed -- the doubt of the just-say-nay group pre-Ebla tablet discovery vs post-Ebla tablet discovery is instructive.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

OBVIOUSLY A king such as David can NOT claim to have a lineage to father or grandfather for the sake of "legitimizing the throne" because

1. David claims to be the FIRST king in his line not the SON of a king. Hint: It does no good to highlight the fact that YOUR family is NOT in the royal line of King Saul as a way to "legitimize your throne".

2. ANY contemporary to David -- (a person he might presumably want to dupe) -- would know his family since these tribesmen stayed pretty much in their home towns. So if his purpose is not to fool his own subjects -- WHO IS he trying to fool -- just Christians in 2008????!!

Again, the answer was a hypothetical reply to a hypothetical question. Did rulers cause genealogies and histories to be written to legitimize and enhance their rule? Yes. Might rulers such as David and Solomon have done the same thing? Yes.

That is a bit too simplistic. The only guys making up stories about their family were pagans who argue that either they were descended from god's or kings.

The whole POINT of the pagan system of "making stuff up" about family was to claim the throne by "right of birth".

Hint: There is no "right of birth" claim in David's story to Saul's throne!

The biblical David and the historical David (if he existed) are not necessarily one and the same person.

Err... ummm because "you imagine it" and thus the bible is not true -- simply because you can "imagine" another history???

I can't believe you go for that kind of reasoning.

How did the historical David establish and support his claim to power? In the Bible is David's claimed descent from Boaz, Obed and Jesse of significance in helping to legitimize his right to rule?

No. None of them in the royal line of king Saul -- none of them even prophets.

Would you like to try another wild guess?

How might those who ruled after the historical David have legitimized their power?

Anyone ruling Judah would want to claim some kind of family relationship to David -- those ruling Israel would NOT. That in no way establishes your guesswork regarding doubt in the case of David himself. He had no claim at all to Saul's throne. No wait -- he was the FRIEND of Jonathan - Saul's son -- are you suggesting that maybe that was made up on David's part to get him king?

The "just-say-nay" approach to scripture is not working as well as you seem to have imagined.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, your abrasive sarcasm is scarcely conducive to persuading anyone that their genuine questions are being answered reasonably. You should also distinguish between questions and arguments concerning the historical David, those concerning the biblical David, and those relating to the interface where the two meet. Your argument that only pagan rulers made stuff up to justify their right to power and that David had no reason to do so is where that interface exists. Not everyone in the world, not even every Christian in the world - including the head of the Anglican Church, for example - agrees with you that just because something is written down in the Bible, it must represent an absolute historical reality.

 

[BobRyan]

The points showing that David made no claim to Saul's throne are obvious.

The points showing that the claims by pagans to being children of the gods or being descendent from royal lines -- is valid and is not even challenged in your post.

Since these points remain -- I am not sure what your solution is other than to complain that I have made these points as if they are glaringly obvious.

If your argument is simply "a member of the Anglican church has been able to ignore enough facts to argue some other point" I will grant you that by ignoring a sufficient amount of inconvenient detail they can easily "come up with a story".

I never doubted that for a moment.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

The points showing that David made no claim to Saul's throne are obvious.

The points showing that the claims by pagans to being children of the gods or being descendent from royal lines -- is valid and is not even challenged in your post.

Since these points remain -- I am not sure what your solution is other than to complain that I have made these points as if they are glaringly obvious.

If your argument is simply "a member of the Anglican church has been able to ignore enough facts to argue some other point" I will grant you that by ignoring a sufficient amount of inconvenient detail they can easily "come up with a story".

I never doubted that for a moment.

I never doubted for a moment that you would conflate facts with fancy and assume that anyone who disagrees with the 'glaringly obvious' conclusions that you derive from your fancy is an ignorant fantasist.

I had rather thought that PL and I were pursuing an interesting discussion that was informative and from which we were both learning something. Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that attempting discussion with you in an effort to reach some common ground and mutual understanding is as productive as shovelling sand against the tide.

 

[BobRyan]

again you did not answer a single point raised.

so if you are not interested in addressing the inconvenient details -- how about answering this ... why is it you view every example of Bible integrity as some kind of "loss for you"??? Are you atheist?

Why do you invest yourself so heavily in arguing against even the most glaringly apparent points of scripture?

Why would you not FIRST have had actual SUBSTANCE in an argument against David as King of Israel -- bringing that SUBSTANCE in as an argument against the Bible? Why simply START in a just-say-nay model without even knowing the facts of the case -- as your default position?

What kind of agenda is that serving?

Why not choose a facts-first approach instead?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob,

As so often, you accuse me of something I have not done, namely argued against David as a king of Israel. If you think I have argued that an historical King David definitely never existed, please supply the link. So far, every time I have requested such a link to support your misrepresentations of what I have said or claimed, you have failed to provide it. Perhaps you would like to provide one now?

I have said frequently that I am not a biblical literalist, at least as far as the OT is concerned.Whether this makes me an atheist in your eyes or not, I have no idea. However, I understand you to claim that the OT is historically and scientifically accurate. By making this claim you place the Bible in the situation of any other document which can be examined critically and analytically to test these claims for historical and scientific accuracy. If you have problems with this, perhaps you shouldn't have made your claims in the first place.

In this context, assertions that something or other is 'glaringly obvious' is not evidential and the text of the Bible cannot be advanced as evidence that it is itself correct and accurate. To determine whether or not this may be the case we have to look beyond the text. The discussion concerning David that has been carried on in is, as far as I am concerned, an effort to discover the historical David and to try and see how the archaeological evidence supporting his existence relates to the OT text. Scripture alone is neither historical nor scientific evidence. If you don't like this uncomfortable fact, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

I have said frequently that I am not a biblical literalist, at least as far as the OT is concerned.Whether this makes me an atheist in your eyes or not, I have no idea.

You have insisted that the OT is literally "corrupt" (when you speak of Moses and the book of Genesis) - your euphamistic term "not a literalist" is meant to disguise "Bible is corrupt".

Whether a "Bible is corrupt" arguement that leads you to start off with the just-say-nay position on ALL topics dealing with the Bible --- is any different than the SAME approach to those topics is seen from atheist posters here -- is left as an exercise for the reader.

However, I understand you to claim that the OT is historically and scientifically accurate.

My claim is that the text is not a "plastic" as you claim nor is it as "corrupt" as you claim.

My claim is that OBJECTIVE methods should be used -- not the eisegete-bias-at-every-turn model you seem so comfortable with.

By making this claim you place the Bible in the situation of any other document which can be examined critically and analytically to test these claims for historical and scientific accuracy. If you have problems with this, perhaps you shouldn't have made your claims in the first place.

Sadly it is in the VERY area of "incovenient details" that your made-up story about David making up his lineage falls apart.

YET this SHOULD HAVE been the very area where your argument excelled IN FACT-NOT-FICTION if we are to believe the line of reasoning you have proposed.

In this context, assertions that something or other is 'glaringly obvious' is not evidential

Then you have missed the meaning behind "glaringly obvious".

and the text of the Bible cannot be advanced as evidence that it is itself correct and accurate.

Certainly not in a just-say-nay approach to scripture that an atheist would choose. For they would need to assert that the Bible is false until proven otherwise -- kinda like you do.

In fact THEY would have to take the position that EACH case in which a "Bible is false argument" does not stand up to close review -- is a LOSS for them -- kinda like you do.

To determine whether or not this may be the case we have to look beyond the text.

Indeed in the "dialoge-with-an-atheist" context the "Bible is not TRUE until disproven" rather it is "FALSE until PROVEN true by some outside more accurate source".

The discussion concerning David that has been carried on in is, as far as I am concerned, an effort to discover the historical David and to try and see how the archaeological evidence supporting his existence relates to the OT text.

If you HAD archaeology SHOWING that David's father is NOT as the Bible states you would have presented it by now. Surely you can see that point.

Scripture alone is neither historical nor scientific evidence. If you don't like this uncomfortable fact, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion.

I am very comfortable with the "scripture is not true" starting context -- starting argument that you propose when I debate with atheists. This is their starting context and I fully understand why.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hint for L.K's "Bible is corrupt" argument -

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR etc.

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

It is left as an exercise for the reader to see the similarity in the arguments to what L.K is proposing about the untrustworthy nature of scripture.

Speaking of the OT - Peter tells us that the one we are TRUSTING in that case -- is GOD!

2 Peter 1 –

20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

Of course an atheist would argue that not only is the OT corrupt but so also is the NT - maybe Peter did not write this -- or if he did -- maybe Peter is wrong. IF Josephus would affirm Peter on this point then maybe they both are wrong -- or maybe then Peter is partly right.


Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob,

I have said frequently that I am not a biblical literalist, at least as far as the OT is concerned. Whether this makes me an atheist in your eyes or not, I have no idea.

You have insisted that the OT is literally "corrupt" (when you speak of Moses and the book of Genesis) - your euphamistic term "not a literalist" is meant to disguise "Bible is corrupt".

You seem as ready to make up what I have 'insisted' and to understand what I 'mean... to disguise' with the same irresponsible enthusiasm you apply to making up things that you claim I have said. I have never used the word 'corrupt' in the context of the OT, nor any other part of the Bible, and I have no intention of disguising what I mean when I say that I am not a biblical literalist. Please substantiate your accusations or withdraw them and revise your phraseology. I am not responding to the remainder of your post, or any other post you make in this thread, until you have done so.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

I have said frequently that I am not a biblical literalist, at least as far as the OT is concerned.Whether this makes me an atheist in your eyes or not, I have no idea. However, I understand you to claim that the OT is historically and scientifically accurate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395092

Indeed you argue frequently that the Bible is not to be trusted as factually accurate source. You call this "Bible is corrupt" position of yours "not taking the Bible literally".

L.K
Scripture alone is neither historical nor scientific evidence. If you don't like this uncomfortable fact, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395092

Again the argument is of the form "scripture can not be trusted for the facts it presents" because in your mind it is corrput -- merely the ignorant ramblings of shepherds. You then refer to your Bible-is-corrupt-text solution "not taking the Bible literally".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, please see my post immediately preceding this last one of yours.

 

[Orion]

Bob, . . . OFTEN the Bible (especially the OT) should not be taken as literal. I don't see how that means anything negative. "Analogy" is an appropriate means of providing a point. :-?

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus said in John 10 "I am the door" nobody is arguing that "Jesus is a slab of wood". The idea being masked by the term "literal" is simply used as a euphamism by some to mean ---

1. Bible is corrupt -- as in the case of Genesis
2. You can't even know what the authors wrote in the autographs - since there is no integrity in the text. (Nobody at the wheel - watching that the copies are preserving content)
3. When Bible writers describe an event they are factually flawed.
4. The historic character (David for example) need not be the character described by Bible writers.
5. (Oh yes and...) The bible may be bent into a symbolic not real statement as it pleases your bias.

That approach to scripture fits well with what stated atheists have said about the text in the past -- but is not likely to be accepted as the "Bible believing" set of parameters.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You seem as ready to make up what I have 'insisted' and to understand what I 'mean... to disguise' with the same irresponsible enthusiasm you apply to making up things that you claim I have said. I have never used the word 'corrupt' in the context of the OT, nor any other part of the Bible, and I have no intention of disguising what I mean when I say that I am not a biblical literalist. Please substantiate your accusations or withdraw them and revise your phraseology. I am not responding to the remainder of your post, or any other post you make in this thread, until you have done so.

What new game is this??

Oh well - I am happy to play as you suggest.

L.K
It is possible to be a Christian and look on the Old Testament as moral allegory and an explanation tailored to the understanding of peoples whose knowledge of the workings of the natural world was far less than ours.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p388756

Same Aesop’s fables argument that Atheist’s make for scripture –

True Believers in Darwinism (Meyers and Dawkins) argue for atheism based on Darwinism -- arguing that the Bible (as a kind of a-factual Aesop's fable text) is not to be trusted when it comes to historic events, facts, claims about the CREATOR
http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778

The “Corrupt text†that results has corrupt defined as “Errors, Ambiguities, absurdities, creative story telling in efforts to come up with a better story…â€Â

5. The OT was compiled several thousand years after the events it purports to recount in a language almost certainly different from that in which it was originally conceived and subsequently requiring translation into English for us to understand.

That
- errors,
- Ambiguities
-and downright absurdities might be incorporated over the centuries

as a result of
-mis-rememberings,
-mistranslations,
- innocent copying errors
-and the desire to tell a better story

seems inevitable to anyone with even a passing understanding of the vagaries of the oral record

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32847&start=60#p390319

Anything "else"???

When you do the smoke-and-mirrors of "I am simply not a Bible literalist" the readers do not immediately get that BY THAT euphamism you REALLY mean the text is loaded with "down right absurdities, story telling in an effort to come up with a better story, errors..." and that copy errors have it so far from the original that we can not be sure what the original text even said.

They do not get the sense of your recent "David not the real historical David" arguments etc.

However when we use the term "Corrupt" ALL of those ideas immediately come to mind!

My point remains.

Bob

 

[Orion]

Jesus said in John 10 "I am the door" nobody is arguing that "Jesus is a slab of wood". The idea being masked by the term "literal" is simply used as a euphamism by some to mean ---

1. Bible is corrupt -- as in the case of Genesis
2. You can't even know what the authors wrote in the autographs - since there is no integrity in the text. (Nobody at the wheel - watching that the copies are preserving content)
3. When Bible writers describe an event they are factually flawed.
4. The historic character (David for example) need not be the character described by Bible writers.
5. (Oh yes and...) The bible may be bent into a symbolic not real statement as it pleases your bias.

That approach to scripture fits well with what stated atheists have said about the text in the past -- but is not likely to be accepted as the "Bible believing" set of parameters.

Bob

I. I've never stated that "the bible is corrupt" due to the metaphorical/poetic language used in Genesis.
2. There are debates even in the church about various books authors. But the point it valid.
3. This may be the case when they are trying to describe something outside of scientific understanding. This is seen in many cases, and even passed onto the words that God was supposedly speaking.
4. I have no opinion on this one.
5. This has nothing to do with "bias". It has to do with things that are obvious metaphores not being used or preached to the masses AS completely literal.