King David's Palace Found

Not true. It would prove that King David really did exist and wasn’t just a biblical myth. That is significant. If this holds, then it would be independent verification of the existence of King David and his kingdom. It would show that Jerusalem was more than just a small village on a hill during the time of King David as skeptics have claimed. It would show that the Book of Jeremiah was correct when it referenced Jehucal son of Shelemiah in Jeremiah 37. It would help solidify the claim that Jews were correct in considering Jerusalem as their ancestral home in contrast to skeptical claims to the contrary.It certainly doesn’t prove everything in the Bible to be true, any more than land mammals to whale fossils prove evolution to be true, but let’s give credit where it is due. This could be a huge find. Makes one wonder what could be uncovered if not for politics.

Actually, whales evolving from land mammals is one piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. It contributes to the overwhelming evidence that evolution did happen. But it is not definitive proof in and of itself. My analogy was intended to show, in a similar fashion, that although this discovery would not validate everything in the Bible, it would contribute to Biblical credibility.

Not fair? As I said, it was an analogy. The discovery, if shown to be true, adds to the credibility of the Bible.

How does the Mazar discovery confirm Biblical myth? You seem to close the door on any future archaeological investigation and that if future investigations were conducted, any discoveries should be summarily dismissed without examination.Per your Dever article, Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies... So that’s it, the last word has been written, end of discussion? C’mon, that sort of close mindedness is what I’ve come to expect from hard core fundies. Rational minds will not discount archaeological information without critical review just because some hold the opinion that, the last word has already been written. What does that mean?

I'm curious, what evidence would need to be uncovered to convince you that is was King David's palace?

Fair enough, that's reasonable.This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 08-17-2005 11:41 AM

Dr. Mazar and her financial backers certainly have a vested interest in proving King David's palace. That doesn't imply fraud. If you read the NY Times article, the terms used are, "may be", and Dr. Mazar "believes" it could be. She hasn't come out with anything more than speculation. The OP in this thread is the only place I've seen that isn't speculation.No other archaeologists would support speculation especially when Dr. Mazar hasn't been definitive herself. We'll just have to wait for her published work.

Yes, that's a reasonable assumption. I wouldn't expect physical evidence to support the supernatural. At best, it can only confirm biblical history.

No you didn't, that's good. As to bias, well, isn't every archaeological dig based at least partially on some sort of bias? Archaeologist don't just go out into the desert and dig at random locations. There is usually an expectation of finding something to confirm a hypothesis. Hoping and wishing to confirm a hypothesis. Dr. Mazar's dig is not any different in this regard.And yes, I'm sure there will be peer review.

Good point

Planet Smilies