The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents

HI Rrhian,Regarding this: Do you have at hand any references to these extra-biblical documents that place Solomon's reign around 950 BCE, they would be very useful for me and would save me a lot of time tracking them down?It is my understanding, at this moment in time, that there are no contemporary extra-biblical texts that mention Solomon, or for that matter, David and Saul. I could be wrong of course.If this isnt convenient it is ok, I can track them down when I have more time.ThanksBrian.

HI Paul,Yes I am aware of the Tel Dan Stele, I have researched it thouroughly and have to conclude that Biran and Naveh's arguments in favour of this being a reference to a historical David are less than convincing.The most obvious problem is that in the Hebrew Bible 'House of David' is always written in two words 'Bet David' as do the references to contemporary dynastic names from Syria and Mesopotamia (Bit Adina, Bit Gusi and Bit Humriya).The Tel Dan inscription does not have a word divider, the reference is to 'bytdwd', and other references with name combinations like this in the Hebrew Bible always refer to places. For example Bethel, Bethany and Bethlehem all refer to places so 'bytdwd' may refer to a place that was near Dan.What I find strange for this period of Israel's history is that the Bible makes great claims for Saul, David and Solomon, they allegedly were very significant people who led vast armies and defeated many enemies, yet what do we find of their empires, an ambiguous reference in an inscription at Dan?Maybe in the future more artefacts will be discovered but I find it surprising that, given the extensive excavations in Palestine, we still have no undisputed reference to any of these three Kings.Brian.

The biblical dating of the Flood land right in the middle of the Third Ming Dynasty and Chinese culture shows no sign of being totally wiped off the face of the Earth. Egyptian culture has at least a 7000 year uninterupted history as well, so if there was a worldwide flood then they slept through it too.What some people need to start doing is to stop taking the Bible literally, they need to understand that interpretation is all important when examining the Bible. The Bible's authors weren't interested in recording accurate historical information, they were writing for a specific purpose, to show God's relationship with his chosen people. I think you wil find that the flood is more theological than literal.Brian.

Hi,Yes I agree entirely, theese legendary figures may or may not have been based on real people, but that they have been exaggerated is very true.Thanks for the reply.brian.

Hi Rrhain,Thanks for the reply, this is essentially the same as i have at the moment, that the date is worked out from the first verified kings and redacted to get a date for Solomon. It seems to be pretty much taken for granted that Solomon's reign began about 960 or so, most of the references I have read about it do not really go into any great detail of how that date is arrived at, although I am sure there will be a detailed description somewhere.I have about a dozen references to check up on, they are mostly like these two:William Dever Is There Any Archaeological Evidence For The Exodus? in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1997: A further problem in the text concerns chronology. In 1 Kings 6:1, which relates the dedication of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, it is said that this event occurred 480 years after the Exodus, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Since Solomon's accession date of c. 960 B.C.E. can be calculated via synchronisms with astronomically fixed Assyrian and Babylonian king lists, we would place the date of the Exodus at c. 1440 B.C.E. (supported then by other schemes of chronological reckoning in the biblical materials). page 69And.K.L. Noll Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.Behind this difference in terminology lurks a significant problem. According to the Bible, a man named David created a kingdom in Palestine (2 Sam. 8). Following this, his son, Solomon, presided over a huge empire, stretching from the Euphrates River to the border of Egypt (1 Kgs 5.1; in some English versions, this is 4.21). According to biblical chronology, David was active in the eleventh century BCE (c. 1060-1020 BCE). After cross-referencing the biblical data with ancient Mesopotamian records, all historians adjust the dates for David's activity down to the tenth century. Thus, David's dates are frequently listed in history books as 1000 to 960 or so BCE, and Solomon is given dates c. 960 to 920 BCE. This reflects the biblical cliche of 40-year reigns for each, which sounds suspiciously artificial. The two may have been active for less than 80 years. Nevertheless, if David and Solomon were real people, they lived in the tenth century BCE, whether it is called IA, IC or IA IIA. pp170-71I am in no great hurry as I will not be examining Solomon's reign until after xmas, it is just when I saw your post I thought that I could do it the lazy way!Thanks again.Brian.