King David's Palace Found

correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't the bible: inerrancy and accuracy forum be a better place for this thread? it seems to be about archaeology, not scriptural interpretation.

---

אָרַח

yes, and no. it doesn't prove the bible is accurate -- but it CAN prove something: it could concievably prove that king david was a real person. it wouldn't prove the accuracy of the information in accounts by any means -- but it would be more than we have right now.currently, there is very little indication that king david even was a real person. we have one stone which mentions the name of the family of david, but that's about it.finding his court would be an immense step forward in showing that the book of samuel is at least BASED on real people/events and not totally fictitious.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-16-2005 03:58 PM

---

אָרַח

actually, as the find is a significant building and is from that period, it refutes that claim whether or not it's david's palace. uh oh. more fuel to the fire. actually, evolution is a pretty small concept compared to biblical inerrancy. whales evolving from land mammals proves evolution happens, period. but finding king david's palace doesn't prove every "jot and tittle" of the bible to be the word of god.but yes, it's a very significant find, whether or not it's proof of david.

---

אָרַח

no, i think he's backpedaling. he's been doing a lot of cut-n-paste religiously fundamental posts recently. seems to have taken up trolling, too, since he rarely actually respods to criticism.this is one of those wedge things. proving king david existed is a first step to showing the bible to be the complete, literal and inerrant word of god, which is the ultimate goal of a lot of fundamentalist arguments. it's sort of what id is to creationism: the id'ers will get really upset if you out them as religious people. they're trying to trick people into accepting religion as science through deception and disguise.

---

אָרַח

no, i don't think so either.archaeology tends to side with one but not the other.

---

אָרַח

yes, a very good point. the person who found it seems to think it's david's court. but nobody else does, including the person who wrote the article, i think.finding a palace from the 10th century br in jerusalem and concluding it's david's just because you've read samuel is a mighty jump in logic. and then saying that it's proof of david is circular: the assumption is that it's david's. assumptions are not proof.

---

אָרַח

as far as i can tell, they're going on the hopes and dreams of one archaeologist.you're right, it is one thing to find A palace... (welcome to evc btw)

---

אָרַח

seems like an accurate portrayal. btw, you never responded to my criticism of "iraq is only as deadly as detroit" which you copied and pasted several months ago. as for this: you obviously are. the title of this thread is "King David's Palace Found." the article you cite neither indicates that there is any evidence that it's *A* palace, let alone proof of king david existing. your title is misleading -- there is no evidence that king david's palace HAS been found.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-16-2005 07:06 PM

---

אָרַח

so was the tablet from solomon's temple. sort of the point, i think.people are over-zealous to "prove" the bible, often for very modern political reasons and not just faith ones. validating the jewish-israeli claim to jerusalem is a BIG one.now, don't get me wrong. no matter what this turns out to be it's a very significant find. i'm not aware of any other hebrew architecture from the period, and it pre-dates some of the estimates for when they were in jerusalem (if it's indeed even hebrew).but let's not jump to conclusions. we don't know yet that:

• it's a palace
• it's king david's palace
• king david existed
• it's from the exact time king david would have existed
• the real king david was anything like the bible describes him

the find, at best, can only prove some of these, if any. let's not jump to conclusions just because of our various religions.

---

אָרַח

well, alot of it has to do with claims to the holy land. as it is, there is relatively little hebrew history found in the archaeology. their story of their origins in the area (pre-egypt, i mean) are what they cite as part of their right to own land. they also cite the post-exodus verses about their promised land.if the history were to actually back that up, their claims could be seen as legitimized. and so jewish-israelis of course want that. it's sort of a "we were here first, so it's our land" kind of thing.claiming something to be king david's palace legitimizes king david, and the biblical history to some degree -- more fuel to the fire. at best it's politically and religiously biased. at worst, it's outright political.

---

אָרַח

"manifest destiny."

---

אָרַח

the statement, premature of facts, i mean.personally, i think it would be awesome if it really was king david's palace. but i'd like that based on evidence, not whimsy.

---

אָרַח

this works for cities.for instance, we know roughly where troy was rumored to be for a long time, but hadn't managed to find it. when we found a city in the right place, from the right times, that roughly matched homer's description, it was announced that troy had been found. now, the archaeologist may or may not have been looking for troy at the time (i suspect so, but i'm not a greek history buff).this is very different than saying "we found helen of troy's bed chamber!" one is a reasonable inference, one is not.shall i spell out the analogy? we already know where jerusalem is. we know where most of the old walls are, too. individual building, and who specifically they belonged to are harder to prove.some kind of inscription would do it though. if they find that, by all means announce it (even if it later turns out to be a forgery). but barring evidence, it's just fantasy. the neat thing about egyptians is that they marked stuff well. they wrote all over it. when we find a pharoah's tomb, not only do we know who was in it, but we generally have their biography, writings, and all their worldly posessions too.there, well, to invoke a biblical phrase, you just "read the writing on the wall."

---

אָרַח