There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

I havnt read beyond the first few posts (will read all if I have time), but I need to point out that the vast majority of historians, archaeologists, and scholars believed David to have actually existed BEFORE the discovery at Dan in 1993. (I have read endless books from all the leading experts in the field plus have lots of journals)It is commonly stated claim that most felt David was un-historical before the discovery in Tel Dan.Not true.There was (and still are) a vocal group of scholars who were among leaders in their scholarly field who questioned the accuracy of Iron Age related events described in the Bible-and mainly publish in scholarly journals like Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament & Scandinavian Journal of the Old testament-but they were never a majority.Even leading historians closely associated with these "minimilastic" views, like Gosta Ahlstrom, believed David and Solomon to be historical.See his massive 990 page book History of Ancient Palestine(1993).That was before the Tel Dan discovery.Since its discovery, actually most evidence (archaeological) has done more to disprove the United Monarchy claims of the Bible than enhance it.And there are some alternative non-majority views of the Tel Dan discovery which question conclusions reached from it.See the book Jerusalem in History and Tradition (2003) by Thomas Thompson and check out roughly pages 46-67 by Niels Peter lemche for a brief outline of disputed issues.The book is expensive to buy, but the library loan program will enable people to read it for free.The Tel Dan discovery didnt really add anything truely revolutionary to the discussion, even if the widely held conclusions on it are accurate.In no way, shape, or form does it prove the United Monarchy.I remind people the Israel Finkelstein never questioned the existence of David infact believes he existed.Davids existence isnt so startling.The Tel Dan discovery is over-rated.It adds something to our knowledge of ancient Israel and Judah, but didnt really over-turn established opinion.

G. E. Wright, though one of the leading Bible apologists of our century, didnt believe the Jericho destruction was part of Israels history.Like Frank Moore Cross, Werner Keller, and others he did believe in the Conquest but felt incidents like Jericho and Ai were etiological stories and/or borrowing from Canaanite history.Jericho was situated on a fault line and was destroyed dozens of times from 3000-2000 BCE alone. It was last destroyed in 1550 BCE before the Israelite period (commonly dated at 1220 BCE).He also didnt belive Genesis 1-11 was historical.Neither did Albright and other Bible "believers".

My main gripe was more with Christian spologists who use the Tel Dan discovery to claim "before this amazing discovery, the existence of david was doubted".You havnt noticed it I see, but I have heard it claimed numerous times.And, I see you have swallowed the fundi-apolegetic line.There is a view among fundamentalists to view the conclusions of mainstream scholars (mostly negative to the Bible) as somehow reflecting a pre-concieved bias against the entire Bible.Infact, the view was nearly universal that the Bibles history covering the period after 1000 BCE was very accurate only decades ago.I am merely pointing out that the shifting sands of mainstream archaeological opinion have actually moved somewhat against the major details of the Bibles early monarchy in the last few decades.Im not taking sides.Im simply trying to prevent completely false views of our understanding of mainstream scholarly consensus (especially past views).I feel like I am constantly swimming against the tide.(on a side issue, I also have a peeve with regards to people thinking there was ever a fundamentalist view that held to a c1220 Conquest.Actually, nearly every believer in a Ramses-era Exodus rejected major parts of the Biblical Conquest account since it contradicted the archaeological excavations.More ironic, is that lay-fundemantalists like IamJoseph actually think that a c. 1220 Conquest actually is compatible with their fundemantalist faith in the entire Bible text being 100% historic.)