Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man

It appears that Ray has been terminated.You'll have to wait for those artefacts.Brian.

can't say i don't understand why.anyone else debating here?

---

אָרַח

Nah, no one else.Drive through.

There was a debate? Damn, must have missed it...

Reign of David: 1018 to 978 BC.Show me just ONE heathen claim of victory for this time period ?Ray

And he was looking for evidence.How is the lack of evidence of a 'heathen victory' during this time evidence FOR King David?

The Bible says David was Israel's greatest warrior; was never defeated, and held territory from the Euphrates to Egypt.Producing a heathen victory for the time period stated would create a controversy in lieu of the facts already stated.There are none because the Bible is correct.Ray

Sorry Ray, I forgot all about this.Uni is back on Feb 8th, if I have time before that I'll pop in and have a look around and get back to you.My apologies again.Brian.

That is making a lot of assumptions there. It certainly isn't anything I would count as evidence.Again.. how is the absense of evidence of any defeat or battles evidence FOR King David?Your assuming that the bible is right, so the absense of evidence means the bible is right.You need something more than absense of evidence, and the assumption that the bible is correct.

I haven't had time to look up sources, but one thing is for sure, there are no contemporary recorded victories for Israel during David's 'reign'.I suspect I will dig up something maybe Aramaean or Phonecian, however it is a relatively peaceful period.But, I enjoy these chats with Ray, this period of Ancient Israel's is the one I enjoy most as it is just a small part of a much wider subject.I know the default isn't a Davidic empire, there is contrary evidence to there being a single polity all the way from Egypt to the Euphrates.Also, the 'evidence' for there being a King David is limited to one vague reference in the Tel Dan Stele, the evidence for a united monarchy is even less than that!Brian.

IIRC, this was also a period of relative stagnation throughout the middle east. Egypt was under the Lybian monarchs and the sphere of power moved eastward from the nile, Greece was in it's Dark Ages, and the power structure in Mesepotamia broken up into several smaller powers instead of one monolithic one.It would appear to be a time when there were power vacuums all around, the major powers in all directions somewhat pacific and the perfect time for a minor warlord to build a dynasty. The idea of a Saul or David rising up and taking over parts of the eastern end of the Med is certainly not impossible. Since all of the big boys were otherwise occupied, the beginnings of the creation of Persia, Greece, a weakened Egypt ruled by foriegn powers, weak empires further up the Nile and in Ethiopia, it's not surprising if some minor warlord went unnoticed.This message has been edited by jar, 01-05-2006 11:25 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Negative.You are the one assuming the evidence (Bible) is not evidence. I could easily identify an invulnerable motive on your part.We have evidence.We have corroboration (no heathen victories during the time period of David's reign).Evidence is corroborated.Ray

The purpose of me pasting this comment is to say it is ambiguous.What exactly are you saying ? Right.Because David ruled the entire Near East. Ridiculous.You assume the Bible is not evidence.Why should anyone buy into your special pleading ?There is nothing vague about the stele and if there is abundant external evidence for the divided monarchy then this reflects on the united tribes.Evolutionists have no trouble with the MASSIVE gaps in the fossil record, yet a tiny by comparison gap between the Hebrew states somehow is troubling.We know when Ahab lived, reigned, and died. We know much about Saul.We have ZERO evidence of transitionality in the fossil record.Go figure.Ray

I don’t know how else I can say it, there are no contemporary records of a victory by King David in the time frame that you have given. There are no David victory steles, no contemporary records for a King David at all, nothing. There isn’t even a shred of evidence that Palestine was a single polity at this time. Why is David invisible in the archaeological record then? If David was such a prominent figure, why is there no record of him in any other culture. The guy is invisible. The Bible is not a contemporary witness, and has been shown upteen times to be inaccurate anyway. The Bible itself is evidence, however, just like any other text it needs external evidence to support its claims. That was Albright’s dictum, everything must have external evidence if it is to have any credibility. What the Bible claims for David has been shown to be at best exaggerated, at worst, a fairytale, it certainly isn’t to be taken at face value. There’s no special pleading, it was a casual reply. You need to look at it again then. Beth David may refer to a place rather than a dynasty. Even if it is a dynasty, that doesn’t mean that the said founder of that dynasty was real. The Tel Dan Stele is Aramaic, and it may only reflect a title that the Israelites used by tradition. The reference is ambiguous, not all scholars accept that it supports an historical David. The arrival of the already reconstructed fragments is not really what archaeologists should do, why do you think Biran stuck the fragments together before anyone else had a chance to examine them? Also, the stele is not a contemporary record. But there isn’t any external evidence of a united monarchy, this is the point. What does evolution have to do with this discussion? I am not a scientist, and I am certainly not interested in the evo-creo debate, it bores me to tears. It isn’t tiny though, it is non-existent. A long time after David was supposed to though, and long after the ”United Monarchy’ dissolved. All from the Bible though, as Saul is even more invisible than David.
If there was a Saul, a David, or a Solomon, then they were virtually village chieftains, probably relatively wealthy, and with a fairly small land holding. They were certainly not major players in the ancient near east. What does transitionality mean? Hey, it is a strange world. Some people think that God can die and bring Himself back to life three days later. Yes, it is absurd, but millions believe it. Brian.

A question for you ray, if david was a big deal, a person who ruled vast lands, how come there isn't any record outside the bible about him? why is it that no writers of that time gave him space?the bible is as much evidence as the history of the greek ocupation of greece was, ie: myths to give the people racial unity
troy has more evidence than king david, atlantis does tooI love how you revert to taking pot shots at evolutionists when you can't find answers, bravo!where is evidence of saul, the evidence has to be outside the bibleThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-06-2006 02:57 AM