A bunch of people who believed that God was talking to them wrote down what they believed God was saying.
The more relevant or successful scriptures were kept and eventually composed into the OT.
Something similar happend after Jesus did his thing, and the NT was produced.
Nowhere in this process do I see any reason to believe that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Why should I believe someone when they claim to speak for God?
So, the point of debate is this:
Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?
The Bible is not the word of God
Moderator: Moderators
-
DrProctopus
- Student
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:24 pm
Post #231
Hi Easyrider, I've been pretty busy lately, but I thought that I might try to straighten out this thread somewhat. Let's backtrack a bit...
First of all, it was you who linked to the Trumpet article in the first place. Finkelstein would clearly be prominent among the "Some scholars" who "suggest that King David and Solomon were nothing more than petty tribal chieftains..." mentioned in that article, so in effect it was you who raised the issue. I merely put the name on it.
Next, you refer to Finkelstein as "discredited". How? By whom? What do you think the word "discredited" even means? Please show how he has been "discredited. The article (re: Megiddo) that you linked to is dated Jan. 2000, and yet according to the Smithsonian.com Magazine from May 2006...
"In the fall of 2004, Mazar and Finkelstein each presented their contradictory theses at a conference at Oxford, England, and each brought in a physicist to analyze the radiocarbon dating of the objects from Megiddo. But since the margin of error for radiocarbon dating is about 50 years—within the difference between the competing chronologies—both could claim validation for their theories. The discrepancy of 50 years might seem like splitting hairs, but the implications reverberate into the present day."
So, you can't even prove that Finkelstein is wrong about Megiddo, let alone "discredited".
Is Finkelstein a "minimalist"? Sure. Why not? Presumably that is his opinion based on evidence.
"Finkelstein agrees that even if his hypothesis is correct, it "does not mean that David and Solomon did not exist." from here. Does that sound like "King David was a myth" to you?
Unless you can show that he has some sort of anti-biblical agenda, then the label is meaningless.
You might try to present evidence of bias like this...
Eilat Mazar, an ardent Zionist...is a believer in the Bible’s historical reliability..."I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other."
Mazar remains focused on her goal: establishing the authenticity of her find which she open-mindedly calls the"...tangible remains of the place where the most famous king in history once lived."
Of course, it's not likely that she has ulterior motives, even though the conservative Israeli research institute sponsoring her dig, the Shalem Center, is funded by American investment banker Roger Hertog, who is on record as saying he hoped to show “that the Bible reflects Jewish history.”
Is Finkelstein a "liberal"? By your definition I guess he is, but that definition begs the question because it is premised upon the assumption that the Bible is actually true. IF Finkelstein turns out to be correct (which he might) then his views will be considered "conservative", at least in a scientific sense. Although not all of his ideas are mainstream he's not as "out there" as you might suppose, for example...
"He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c." from here.
Is Finkelstein a "revisionist"? He's got a long way to go to beat the OT authors if he is. Let's see what others have to say...
"I have no doubt that the description of David and Solomon in the Bible is to a large extent exaggerated, but this doesn't mean you have to cancel David and Solomon as historical figures." - Amihai Mazar from here.
"It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historical, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail." - from Wikipedia.
A fair account of the historicity of this part of the OT is given in this article, King David and Jerusalem - Myth and Reality by Daniel Gavron, from the Israel Review of Arts and Letters...
"It is generally accepted among scholars today that there is genuine historical material in the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David; but even these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend and fact, in as much as it can ever be known. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later.
Apart from the lists, the account appears to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting."
So no one (not even Finkelstein) is trying to argue against the existence of David as an historical person; it is the "golden age" of the United Kingdom that is the creation of the real revisionists, the Deuteronomists, some three centuries later.
While you might believe that anyone who doesn't begin with the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate authority on everything is a "liberal" or a "minimalist" or a "revisionist" or whatever, it does no good for you to cry about it, unless you can actually show that these people are wrong, and not just that you think they are. It is facts that define the mainstream, not ideologies.
To which you replied...Cephus wrote:The Bible is a book of mythology, nothing more, nothing less, but even books of mythology can have some good points.
Now unless you can tell us who "You guys" is, this is a strawman argument, which is why I said...Easyrider wrote: You guys used to say King David was a myth too, until they found the Tel Dan tablets.
To which McCulloch added...Lotan wrote:Who exactly do you mean by "You guys"? I never said anything like that.
So, everyone so far has agreed that there was an historical David. Apparently that's not good enough for you, so you post a link to some apologist (United Church of God!) website...McCulloch wrote:Unless I am missing something, this proves that there was a king of Israel who claimed to be a descendant of King David. Presumably, an earlier king of Israel was named David.
This is news to no one. You should save it for someone who is actually arguing against an historical David. I suspect that this is what bothers you…Easyrider wrote:http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn005/gn005f02.htm
"The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the 'House of David'
Oh no! The Bible is 100% historically reliable, isn’t it? This calls for more apologetics…McCulloch wrote:Still the tales told of this David fall squarely in the realm of myth as do the tales told of the probably real king who ruled later in Britain, Arthur.
Besides the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that the ruins in question are either "King David’s" or a "Palace", I posted a few quotes from the article along with the opinions of myself and others, including this one…
Ah, the dreaded Finkelstein! Even though I state clearly that I am not in complete agreement with his views re the United Kingdom, the very mention of his name is enough to prompt you to offer a second strawman argument…Lotan wrote:"Some scholars suggest that King David and Solomon were nothing more than petty tribal chieftains who ruled over an area comprising little more than a few scattered rural clans. One renowned archeologist has even hypothesized that Jerusalem during David’s time was nothing more than a “typical hill country village”
That would be Finkelstein and co. I tend to think that David's kingdom was slightly better than this, but not much.
Apparently you didn’t understand or care to acknowledge my reply…Easyrider wrote:Ah yes... the discredited minimalist Finkelstein. You love to trot out these liberal revisionists, don't you?
Who Destroyed Megiddo? Was It David or Shishak?
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f1.html
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/solomon.html
C14 dating affirms Scripture/Scripture affirms C14 dating!
…because you just continued your polemic, disregarding my answer…Lotan wrote:I know that Finkelstein takes things a little too far (you'll notice that I don't entirely agree with him) but I'm not aware that he has been "discredited".
In any case, I didn't "trot" him out, I just put a name to the "Some scholars" mentioned in the Trumpet article that you cited.
So now, I will answer your question clearly – No, I do not "love to trot out these liberal revisionists", and quite frankly, I resent the insinuation, especially considering the apologetic nature of the sources that you are prone to citing.Easyrider wrote:If you were middle of the road you wouldn't be trotting out Finkelstein for a run around the arena.
First of all, it was you who linked to the Trumpet article in the first place. Finkelstein would clearly be prominent among the "Some scholars" who "suggest that King David and Solomon were nothing more than petty tribal chieftains..." mentioned in that article, so in effect it was you who raised the issue. I merely put the name on it.
Next, you refer to Finkelstein as "discredited". How? By whom? What do you think the word "discredited" even means? Please show how he has been "discredited. The article (re: Megiddo) that you linked to is dated Jan. 2000, and yet according to the Smithsonian.com Magazine from May 2006...
"In the fall of 2004, Mazar and Finkelstein each presented their contradictory theses at a conference at Oxford, England, and each brought in a physicist to analyze the radiocarbon dating of the objects from Megiddo. But since the margin of error for radiocarbon dating is about 50 years—within the difference between the competing chronologies—both could claim validation for their theories. The discrepancy of 50 years might seem like splitting hairs, but the implications reverberate into the present day."
So, you can't even prove that Finkelstein is wrong about Megiddo, let alone "discredited".
Is Finkelstein a "minimalist"? Sure. Why not? Presumably that is his opinion based on evidence.
"Finkelstein agrees that even if his hypothesis is correct, it "does not mean that David and Solomon did not exist." from here. Does that sound like "King David was a myth" to you?
Unless you can show that he has some sort of anti-biblical agenda, then the label is meaningless.
You might try to present evidence of bias like this...
Eilat Mazar, an ardent Zionist...is a believer in the Bible’s historical reliability..."I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other."
Mazar remains focused on her goal: establishing the authenticity of her find which she open-mindedly calls the"...tangible remains of the place where the most famous king in history once lived."
Of course, it's not likely that she has ulterior motives, even though the conservative Israeli research institute sponsoring her dig, the Shalem Center, is funded by American investment banker Roger Hertog, who is on record as saying he hoped to show “that the Bible reflects Jewish history.”
Is Finkelstein a "liberal"? By your definition I guess he is, but that definition begs the question because it is premised upon the assumption that the Bible is actually true. IF Finkelstein turns out to be correct (which he might) then his views will be considered "conservative", at least in a scientific sense. Although not all of his ideas are mainstream he's not as "out there" as you might suppose, for example...
"He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c." from here.
Is Finkelstein a "revisionist"? He's got a long way to go to beat the OT authors if he is. Let's see what others have to say...
"I have no doubt that the description of David and Solomon in the Bible is to a large extent exaggerated, but this doesn't mean you have to cancel David and Solomon as historical figures." - Amihai Mazar from here.
"It is generally assumed that the Biblical account of the history of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, as presented in the Books of Kings, is historical, even if not unbiased. Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated the general picture presented in the Bible, although not every detail." - from Wikipedia.
A fair account of the historicity of this part of the OT is given in this article, King David and Jerusalem - Myth and Reality by Daniel Gavron, from the Israel Review of Arts and Letters...
"It is generally accepted among scholars today that there is genuine historical material in the Books of Samuel, which describe the careers of Saul and David; but even these books must be critically examined to distinguish between legend and fact, in as much as it can ever be known. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later.
Apart from the lists, the account appears to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting."
So no one (not even Finkelstein) is trying to argue against the existence of David as an historical person; it is the "golden age" of the United Kingdom that is the creation of the real revisionists, the Deuteronomists, some three centuries later.
While you might believe that anyone who doesn't begin with the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate authority on everything is a "liberal" or a "minimalist" or a "revisionist" or whatever, it does no good for you to cry about it, unless you can actually show that these people are wrong, and not just that you think they are. It is facts that define the mainstream, not ideologies.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #232
The Urantia Revelation has some interesting insights concerning David and the "bias" of the chosen people and their history revisionism. It's sort of like asking Carl Rove to write the history of the Bush administration. 
http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper97 ... %20HISTORY
It's a must read for Bible scholars.
http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper97 ... %20HISTORY
It's a must read for Bible scholars.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #233
So, do you have the actual peer reviewed article, or are you just repeating a web page that is copying from a newspaper article?Easyrider wrote: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/solomon.html
And, why do so many biblicalists scorn carbon dating except when they think it 'proves' somethimgabout scripture?
And why do they always conceptrate on the newspaper articles that often misrepresnt the finds, rather than peer reviewed archological studies?
-
Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Post #234
Because it's useful. When something is useful, they claim it works, when it goes against them, they claim it's worthless. The creationists have been doing it for decades.goat wrote:And, why do so many biblicalists scorn carbon dating except when they think it 'proves' somethimgabout scripture?
It's hypocracy, pure and simple.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #235
It was a rhetorical question.Cephus wrote:Because it's useful. When something is useful, they claim it works, when it goes against them, they claim it's worthless. The creationists have been doing it for decades.goat wrote:And, why do so many biblicalists scorn carbon dating except when they think it 'proves' somethimgabout scripture?
It's hypocracy, pure and simple.
I will also point out that science magazine had the original argument in April of 2003, as well as a few responses to the inconsistencies in the methodology of evidence collection were published in October of 2003.
