Is This the Best Christians can do?

[Tcg]

.
When it comes to supporting their God belief, are insults from their holy book like the following the best Christians have to offer?

"A fools is a person who does stupid things. If it is stupid to say "God does not exist", then it is legitimate to call that person a fool. And then it is not just name calling."

viewtopic.php?p=1140930#p1140930


Tcg

[Difflugia]

The Psalmist, most likely King David

How did you arrive at that? Scholars are on the fence whether or not David even existed. How did you compute that he was "most likely" the psalmist?

This is not central to the point as was making, but the claim is also not true. While much of David's life is debated, there is almost universal agreement that a man named David was a leader in Israel around 1,000 BC. Only a tiny fringe group of scholars are on the fence about whether or not David existed.

I'm not sure if you're bluffing or have a genuinely mistaken view of the scholarship, but while there are scholars that claim a historical David, that's not a consensus view, let alone the contrary view being considered fringe.

In Search of 'Ancient Israel' by Philip R. Davies, pp. xi-xii:

References in Assyrian (and Moabite) inscriptions to the kings named in the Bible, which regularly cited to support the assumption of biblical historicity, always denote those of the ‘northern’ kingdom, while evidence of a Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam or Jeroboam remains lacking.

The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel by Thomas L. Thompson, pp. 33-34:

Some folk-tales in the bible, such as the Jacob-Esau chain narrative, do display some limited aspects of historiography (cf. Thompson, 1979). Nevertheless, such heroic tales as the David-Goliath story are not intrinsically different, historiographically speaking, from other unhistorical old folk tales, such as the Samson-Delilah, Lot-Sodom, or Cain-Abel stories.

The best you're likely to get amongst bona fide scholars is that, on the balance, the existence of David is perhaps more likely than not.

David and Solomon by Israel Finkelstein, Introduction (my epub doesn't have page numbers):

Yet we can now say—as we will argue in considerable detail throughout this book—that many of the famous episodes in the biblical story of David and Solomon are fictions, historically questionable, or highly exaggerated. In the following chapters we will present archaeological evidence to show that there was no united monarchy of Israel in the way that the Bible describes it. Although it seems probable that David and Solomon were actual historical characters, they were very different from their scriptural portraits.

The historicity of David is debated. Scholars have opinions, but don't consider the question settled. They're on the fence. If you disagree, perhaps you can present some academic source that supports your contention that only a "tiny fringe" consider the question open.

Now, that brings us back to my question. What scholarship represents that the author of any psalms is probably David? While many traditionalist apologists might argue that David was author of some of the psalms, I contend that no scholar would do so. As the New Oxford Annotated Bible notes in its introduction to Psalms:

Although many are attributed to King David, and some to other individuals, scholars agree that few if any were actually written by them.

Fringe, indeed.

[bjs1]

The Psalmist, most likely King David

How did you arrive at that? Scholars are on the fence whether or not David even existed. How did you compute that he was "most likely" the psalmist?

This is not central to the point as was making, but the claim is also not true. While much of David's life is debated, there is almost universal agreement that a man named David was a leader in Israel around 1,000 BC. Only a tiny fringe group of scholars are on the fence about whether or not David existed.

I'm not sure if you're bluffing or have a genuinely mistaken view of the scholarship, but while there are scholars that claim a historical David, that's not a consensus view, let alone the contrary view being considered fringe.

In Search of 'Ancient Israel' by Philip R. Davies, pp. xi-xii:

References in Assyrian (and Moabite) inscriptions to the kings named in the Bible, which regularly cited to support the assumption of biblical historicity, always denote those of the ‘northern’ kingdom, while evidence of a Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam or Jeroboam remains lacking.

The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel by Thomas L. Thompson, pp. 33-34:

Some folk-tales in the bible, such as the Jacob-Esau chain narrative, do display some limited aspects of historiography (cf. Thompson, 1979). Nevertheless, such heroic tales as the David-Goliath story are not intrinsically different, historiographically speaking, from other unhistorical old folk tales, such as the Samson-Delilah, Lot-Sodom, or Cain-Abel stories.

The best you're likely to get amongst bona fide scholars is that, on the balance, the existence of David is perhaps more likely than not.

David and Solomon by Israel Finkelstein, Introduction (my epub doesn't have page numbers):

Yet we can now say—as we will argue in considerable detail throughout this book—that many of the famous episodes in the biblical story of David and Solomon are fictions, historically questionable, or highly exaggerated. In the following chapters we will present archaeological evidence to show that there was no united monarchy of Israel in the way that the Bible describes it. Although it seems probable that David and Solomon were actual historical characters, they were very different from their scriptural portraits.

The historicity of David is debated. Scholars have opinions, but don't consider the question settled. They're on the fence. If you disagree, perhaps you can present some academic source that supports your contention that only a "tiny fringe" consider the question open.

Now, that brings us back to my question. What scholarship represents that the author of any psalms is probably David? While many traditionalist apologists might argue that David was author of some of the psalms, I contend that no scholar would do so. As the New Oxford Annotated Bible notes in its introduction to Psalms:

Although many are attributed to King David, and some to other individuals, scholars agree that few if any were actually written by them.

Fringe, indeed.

You started with a fringe claim that has been largely rejected by scholars, and then provided evidence for entirely different claims.

You started with the claim that scholar are on the fence about whether or not David existed. Then you provided examples of scholars who questioned the United Kingdom, or the battle between David and Goliath, or the authorship of the Psalms.

None of the scholars you cited questioned the existance of David. One came right out and wrote that it was probable (which is the best you can get when talking about antiquity) that David existed.

So I am neither bluffing nor mistaken. Your claim that "Scholars are on the fence whether or not David even existed" is inaccurate. Only a tiny fringe group of scholars doubt that David existed.

[1213]

.
When it comes to supporting their God belief, are insults from their holy book like the following the best Christians have to offer?

"A fools is a person who does stupid things. If it is stupid to say "God does not exist", then it is legitimate to call that person a fool. And then it is not just name calling."

So, you think it is not foolish to say stupid things?

[TRANSPONDER]

.
When it comes to supporting their God belief, are insults from their holy book like the following the best Christians have to offer?

"A fools is a person who does stupid things. If it is stupid to say "God does not exist", then it is legitimate to call that person a fool. And then it is not just name calling."

So, you think it is not foolish to say stupid things?

I supposeit is, but the problem here (as I just posted to our pal Mae) is not stupidity or foolishness, but dogma and doctrine, that makes smart people say irrational things.

If God exists then to say he doesn't is foolish.

But if no god exists, then it is foolish to claim that a god does. But Faithbased thinking makes the God -apologists commit that basic error of logic, and they cannot help themselves.

[Mae von H]

.
When it comes to supporting their God belief, are insults from their holy book like the following the best Christians have to offer?

"A fools is a person who does stupid things. If it is stupid to say "God does not exist", then it is legitimate to call that person a fool. And then it is not just name calling."

viewtopic.php?p=1140930#p1140930


Tcg

Let us look at the scripture misquoted above:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

So, first it says a person says this in. their heart and not audibly. Second, their deeds are corrupt and vile. So this is not a good person. There is no allowance here to call someone a "fool" and indeed, Jesus warned against this, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

So no, what you are trying to say the Bible encourages is not the case.

[TRANSPONDER]

Timeto put on my theist hat "Oh no; Jesus was talking about angry abuse and unjust insults. To say 'You are a fool if you don't believe in God' is dome out of love, to correct and instruct. One does not apply to the other." I can do excuses and evasions with the best of them.

Of course, you may say (some do) that Jesus changed everything. So everything in the OT is now invalid and wrong? Or just the bits that don't suit? And yet Jesus (supposedly) still places Faith above reason. Someone who has used their brains to assess the evidence and conclude that the Bible -claims (New and OT) are not credible is of lesser wits than someone who is as gullible and uncritical as a child is supposedly.

Matthew 11. 25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do".

The word 'fool' is not there, but it damns as fools the reasoning doubter more even than the OT does.

[Difflugia]

You started with a fringe claim that has been largely rejected by scholars, and then provided evidence for entirely different claims.

You started with the claim that scholar are on the fence about whether or not David existed. Then you provided examples of scholars who questioned the United Kingdom, or the battle between David and Goliath, or the authorship of the Psalms.

No. The specific discussions I quoted involved those scholars questioning the very existence of David and Solomon. You'll note that the first quotation is specifically not about some specific details, but the evidence that "is lacking" is for the kings themselves.

If you need something more explicit from Thompson, here's a quote from The Mythic Past (pp. xiv-xv):

Although the historical nature of the David stories had been doubted since the 1970s by literary scholars, and even though the Italian Semitist Giovanni Garbini had already questioned the historicity of the 'United Monarchy' in 1986, my finding no place for David or his empire in my history of Israel created a scandal.

It appears that you might have been right if this discussion were occurring in the 1980s. If scholars are to be believed, however, this attitude changed within the next ten years. Niels Peter Lemche wrote the following in "'House of David': The Tel Dan Inscription(s)," his contribution to the collection Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (p. 46):

In 1993, during his excavations at the site of ancient Dan, which is situated in the most northern part of the modern state of Israel, the Israeli biblical archaeologist Avraham Biran discovered the fragment of an inscription, soon to become the focus of a heated debate among biblical scholars because this inscription might be of decisive importance for answering a long-running question: Is King David really a historical person?

Note that the "long-running question" doesn't seem only to be asked by the "fringe."

None of the scholars you cited questioned the existance of David.

You're mistaken. I guess that answers my question.

One came right out and wrote that it was probable (which is the best you can get when talking about antiquity) that David existed.

Yes. Israel Finkelstein thinks that on the balance, it is more probable than not that David existed. It's clear from the larger context of the discussion that Finkelstein doesn't think that the evidence for David and Solomon rises to the "best you can get when talking about antiquity." Part of his reasoning, for example, is that the Hebrew Bible wouldn't have tried so hard to rehabilitate the brigand David of 1 Samuel 25 if that story weren't true. The criterion of embarrassment isn't necessary for later kings, like Hezekiah, for whom we have much stronger attestation.

So I am neither bluffing nor mistaken.

You're mistaken.

Your claim that "Scholars are on the fence whether or not David even existed" is inaccurate.

That should be easy to prove if it's true. You know, something like, "The consensus is..." from some academic book somewhere. In light of Thompson's comment above, I guess it should probably be from sometime in the last forty years, but I'll take what I can get.

Only a tiny fringe group of scholars doubt that David existed.

Maybe it's just a bigger fringe than you thought.

Now, you have still notably neglected to address the claim that David "most likely" wrote the Psalms. Instead, you've walked your claim all the way back to asserting that some version of David merely existed, even if he bore little or no resemblance to the biblical character. Davies offers his opinion of this attitude in his introduction to a collection of papers, The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, pp. 14-15:

There is a further complication to the debate about biblical historicity, which manifests itself at several points in this volume. In voting for or against some historical event or figure, the issue is not whether or not some kind of historical entity existed to whom the name 'David' (or 'Saul', or 'Solomon') can be attached, or to which the term 'empire' 'kingdom' or 'state' might be applied, but whether such a figure as the David of the Bible existed or such a kingdom as that of the united twelve tribes of Israel was founded. For the only David we know of, and the only twelve-tribe Israel we know of, are the biblical ones. Without the biblical story these characters would not belong to any history that we can recover. This means that attempts to show that a 'David' existed who was not a king, had no empire, did not kill Goliath, but did other things at the same period are guilty (in my view) of a ruse not uncommon among biblical scholars: to argue that the Bible presents a historical figure who was someone else!