Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   King David's Palace Found
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 16 of 81 (233794)
08-16-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
08-16-2005 4:51 PM


Nothing found at the site offers any indication that David existed.
The only link is the dating - itself very uncertain at the time the article was written.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2005 4:51 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ramoss, posted 08-16-2005 10:03 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 81 (233795)
08-16-2005 6:08 PM


It's one thing to find a palace, another to find King David's palace
They found a palace, and it's a pretty great find, but how do they know it's King David's? Are they just going on dating, or is there something in the find that verifies it's King David's palace independent of the stories in the bible?

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 6:32 PM LauraG has replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2005 6:36 PM LauraG has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 81 (233808)
08-16-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LauraG
08-16-2005 6:08 PM


Re: It's one thing to find a palace, another to find King David's palace
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LauraG, posted 08-16-2005 6:08 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LauraG, posted 08-17-2005 1:51 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 81 (233809)
08-16-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LauraG
08-16-2005 6:08 PM


Re: It's one thing to find a palace, another to find King David's palace
Yes, the dating and location is all they have.
I quoted this in the other thread but it's important:
quote:
The building can be reasonably dated by the pottery found above and below it. Ms. Mazar found on the bedrock a large floor of crushed limestone, indicating a large public space. The floor and fill above it contain pottery from Iron Age I of the 12th to 11th centuries B.C., just before David conquered Jerusalem.
Above that, Ms. Mazar found the foundations for this monumental building, with large boulders for walls that are about 2 yards thick and extend at least 30 yards. In one corner was pottery of Iron Age II, the 10th to 9th centuries, roughly the time of the united kingdom.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mazar said, she found no floor. It is clear the building was constructed after the pottery underneath it, but less clear exactly how much later.
So all we can say was that it was built no earlier than the 12th century and not later than the 9th.
The other finds at the site should also be viewed with caution. There have been many forgeries - the fallout from the James Ossuary and the Jehoash tablet uncovered many forgeries - including the ivory pomegranate, which has held to be the one remaining relic of the first Temple.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/...es/Cathey_Recent_Forgeries.htm
http://www.bibleinterp.com/...ollston_Epigraphic_Forgery.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LauraG, posted 08-16-2005 6:08 PM LauraG has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 20 of 81 (233812)
08-16-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
08-16-2005 6:05 PM


Excuse me? Not trying to trick anyone there arach. And I answer criticisms. So I'm either cutting/pasting religious fundy posts or I'm ignoring/hiding from issues. Can't seem to make you happy, and after all, that is my goal in life.

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 6:05 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 7:06 PM Tal has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 21 of 81 (233824)
08-16-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by coffee_addict
08-16-2005 6:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 08-16-2005 6:01 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 81 (233827)
08-16-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tal
08-16-2005 6:42 PM


tricks and dodges
So I'm either cutting/pasting religious fundy posts or I'm ignoring/hiding from issues.
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:
Excuse me? Not trying to trick anyone there arach.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tal, posted 08-16-2005 6:42 PM Tal has not replied

  
Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 81 (233866)
08-16-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tal
08-16-2005 4:00 PM


Tal writes:
Why do you people keep reading that I am citing these things as making the bible true? I'm not, and it doesn't. What it is though, is evidence that supports the bible's historical accuracy.
More accurately, it confirms the Bible as a collection of myth, poetry, folk history, legend, political propaganda, and theocratic code. But no amount of such confirmation renders the Exodus/Conquest narrative anything other than fable.
The ranks of "Biblical Archaeology" have become increasingly polarized. On the one side stand the minimalists, those who see that Tanach as having little or no historical value. On the other side are the so-called "maximalists", those who argue that the Tanach reflects history no matter how poorly. One of the more vocal of the maximalists is William Dever. Though not one of my favorite resources, it's interesting to read his view of the "historical accuracy" of the Bible ...
quote:
Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.
- What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (pg. 97)
After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.
- ibid (pg. 99)
Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...
- ibid (pg. 121)
There is, by the way, a third group of so-called archaeologists. These are the doctrine-driven Judeo-Christians committed to making their facts conform to their theology. About them Dever writes ...
quote:
In retrospect, the demise of biblical archaeology was probably inevitable. The reasons are many. First, what may be called internal weakness of the movement were numerous: its reputation for amateurish fieldwork, naive or biased scholarship, and poor publications; its parochial character, related as it was largely to the conservative (if not Fundamentalist) character of so much of the American religious life; its reactionary nature, locked into dated theological issues, which left it unable to respond creatively to new developments in or outside the field; its resistance to growing trends towards specialization and professionalism, which made it extremely vulnerable; and, above all, the fact that it failed to achieve its own major objective, i.e., the demonstation of the "historicity" of the Bible (at least as it was seen at the time)
- ibid
Mazar's work on "King David's Palace" may well prove interesting, even very interesting, but nothing more.
This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 08-16-2005 09:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tal, posted 08-16-2005 4:00 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 08-16-2005 9:54 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied
 Message 26 by Monk, posted 08-16-2005 10:05 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 81 (233871)
08-16-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Deut. 32.8
08-16-2005 9:28 PM


William Dever writes:
Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me....
Not exactly modest, is he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Deut. 32.8, posted 08-16-2005 9:28 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 25 of 81 (233873)
08-16-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by arachnophilia
08-16-2005 6:08 PM


Actually, they don't even know that it is a palace. It was a public building, but I from what I read, they don't know if it is palace yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 6:08 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 26 of 81 (233874)
08-16-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Deut. 32.8
08-16-2005 9:28 PM


Archaeological fundies
More accurately, it confirms the Bible as a collection of myth, poetry, folk history, legend, political propaganda, and theocratic code. But no amount of such confirmation renders the Exodus/Conquest narrative anything other than fable.
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.
Mazar's work on "King David's Palace" may well prove interesting, even very interesting, but nothing more.
What does that mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Deut. 32.8, posted 08-16-2005 9:28 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 81 (233919)
08-17-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
08-16-2005 6:32 PM


Re: It's one thing to find a palace, another to find King David's palace
arachnophilia --> (welcome to evc btw)
Thanks.
I've been lurking for a while and I thought I'd get my foot wet with a short post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2005 6:32 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AdminNosy, posted 08-17-2005 2:40 AM LauraG has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 28 of 81 (233923)
08-17-2005 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by LauraG
08-17-2005 1:51 AM


W e l c o m e !
Hi LauraG,
I've noticed you lurking for somedays and was considering a first; welcoming someone before they posted -- just for fun.
Now, welcome in a more conventional fashion. Give us all hell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LauraG, posted 08-17-2005 1:51 AM LauraG has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 29 of 81 (233961)
08-17-2005 8:20 AM


Flash: Moses` Tablets found
Put together money, reputations on the line, the improving quality of forgeries, mix with fundy lust, especially the desire to prove Israel is the Promised Land, and folk just might be tempted to turn up The Tablets. Surely they wouldn`t do that? Would they? Nah-----
Side thought: how come Ron Wyatt didn`t recover the Tabs?

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tal, posted 08-17-2005 8:34 AM Nighttrain has replied
 Message 32 by Chiroptera, posted 08-17-2005 11:56 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 30 of 81 (233965)
08-17-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Nighttrain
08-17-2005 8:20 AM


Re: Flash: Moses` Tablets found
LOL, I love you guys. An Archeologist finds a huge palace that she says is King David's palace, and you pull a strawman about moses' tablets!
Yet when another Archeologist finds a piece of a skull the evolutionary world has collective orgasms and shouts to the mountain top how this little piece of bone will "change the way we think about evolution."
Oh, to the point. Nighttrain, meet Strawman.

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Nighttrain, posted 08-17-2005 8:20 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Rahvin, posted 08-17-2005 11:53 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 53 by Nighttrain, posted 08-17-2005 10:23 PM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024