Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe in a massive flood.

Maybe it IS a confused memory of the supposed lawsuit. There was no book, and I don't remember the name - but it does match in other areas (perhaps "Ahmed Behgat" was one of the unnamed backers of the proposed lawsuit). In the discussion here there were even claims about "new evidence" - but there was never anything to substantiate it.See the discussions starting here:
http://EvC Forum: Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt -->EvC Forum: Endogenous Retroviral Insertions Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt and here:
http://EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.' -->EvC Forum: The Exodus: 'A Dead Issue.'(The latter thread has more relevant material to current discussion).(Note that much of what Jester461 said was untrue - and in fact I can find no sign that the lawsuit was ever filed anywhere, or that the "evidence" other than the Torah account was ever anything more than a figment of jester461's imagination.)

quote:

---

I agree that the archeological evidence is scarce but its certainly not surprising in view of the fact Egyptians did not record defamatory matters and were in the habit of changing their histories to suit later rulers. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory Queen Hatshepsut. He had her inscriptions erased, chiseled her name from monuments, built a wall around her obelisks and her name was not recorded in later annals.

---

I would class that as historical rather than archaeological evidence. I was thinking more of evidence of the massive depopulation of Egypt when a large proportion of the (pre-plague) population walked out. Or the Hebrew camp at Kadesh-Barnea. And of course of a large influx of people conquering and destroying in Canaan in conjunction with the above two events.

quote:

---

Josephus also mentions Manatho, an Egyptian historian whom he quotes to confirm that the Jews did come out of egypt

---

Josephus, writing as a Jew, identified the Hyksos with the Israelites (it is his idea, not Manetho's). All that can be said for this is that the Hyksos were apparently Semitic (but Egyptianised) people who lived in the delta region and left Egypt in the direction of Canaan. None of the rest fits. Even at the basic level, the Hyksos ruled the delta area as a separate kingdom and were driven out by military force.A simple identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites accepts that Exodus is wrong in many ways (and therefore proves my point).

quote:

---

Yes this was a short straw... it could have been a hoax of sorts...or he may have based the evidence on the torah...i havent read the book so i dont really know.

​

Lack of evidence for the existence of David and Solomon???

​

such as?

---

No seals belonging to them. No letters corresponding with neighbouring kingdoms. No inscriptions attributed to their reigns, little evidence that Jerusalem was especially important at the time David supposedly reigned over all Israel...

quote:

---

perhaps i could word it differently...Why is it appropriate for science to use dating as a basis of evidence but we cant use dating as a bases for evidence of the age of manuscripts?

---

I never said that you couldn't use "dating as a bases [sic] for evidence for the age of manuscripts". It would be nonsense to say such a thing.

quote:

---

Manetho's account was written over 1000 years after Israel's exodus from Egypt, so perhaps it had become distorted in the details. If the Egyptians were brazen enough to change the history of their own monarchs then why would they maintain a truthful account about a foreign people who dwelt for a short time in their land and conquered their gods and their army?

---

In other words you want to assume that Manetho's account (as relayed by Josephus) is distorted in just the ways you find convenient.There's one big, big problem with that. Your assumptions aren't evidence. If you want to use Manetho as evidence then you are stuck with what Manetho actually says. Not what you assume he was talking about.Manetho's story is very different from the Exodus as I have already pointed out. If you want to show that it is wrong then you need evidence.

quote:

---

Im not sure why you say that??
According to the archaeological inscriptions in the Karnak Temple in Egypt, Shishak (Shoshenq I) conquered Solomons temple and carried off the booty

---

Except that there is no mention of Solomon at all. There could be a temple in Jerusalem without Solomon.

quote:

---

Archaeology confirms the existence of the cedar forests of Lebanon, where Solomon obtained timbers for his building projects

---

The existence of cedar forests in Lebanon does nothing to show that Solomon existed. Unless you are suggesting that Solomon somehow magically created those forests.

quote:

---

There was an Isreali team led by Yigael Yadin who discovered the defensive gates built by Solomon...see the book Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible.

---

The association with Solomon is disputed (and is based solely on the dating), with other archaeologists attributing these structures to the Omride dynasty of Israel.

quote:

---

There is evidence for Davids existence too.
In the early 90's at the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, archeologists uncovered a basalt stone with the words carved into it "House of David" and "King of Israel".

---

The interpretation of the Tel Dan stele is disputed. (It has
been discussed here - Brian had a lot to say about it).So thanks for once again showing that I am correct. And for giving me a laugh by suggesting that cedar forests in Lebanon are evidence of Solomon.

quote:

---

the fact is that King David is mentioned by another nation

---

No, it is not a fact. It's an interpretation that may not be correct. (It may well be, but it's uncertain).

quote:

---

the assertion was that there is NO mention of him anywhere except the bible. That assertion is incorrect.

---

No, there was no such assertion. Please remember that the rules of the site tell you to avoid misrepresentation.

quote:

---

but it does prove that the writers of the bible were not writing fanciful tales of mythical places and mythical characters

---

Even if it did (and it only "proves" it in this instance) that isn't relevant to showing that Solomon existed.

quote:

---

everything is disputed...but you cant change the fact that there is evidence for both solomon and david...even if its being disputed.

---

YOU can't change the fact that the evidence is very weak - fully justifying my statement that their existence is uncertain.

quote:

---

Are you saying, PaulK, that Solomon didn't exist?

---

I guess that you're too lazy to read the posts or you wouldn't have to ask.I'm saying that Solomon's existence is uncertain. Peg is doing a nice job of demonstrating that by failing to come up with any significant evidence of Solomon's existence outside the Bible.

quote:

---

Paul, you said there was a good LACK of evidence to support the existence of David and Solomon

---

To be more accurate, I said that there was a lack of GOOD evidence.

quote:

---

if you dont accept the archeology that has been found as a possibility, you should say "there have been various finds for these individuals, but i doubt they are accurately interpreted" or something to that effect rather then blatantly claiming there is no evidence.

---

Since I didn't claim that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever you are simply engaging in more misrepresentation.

quote:

---

Little bearing on the accuracy of the bible???

---

Yes. All your examples dealing with events prior to those described in 1 Samuel (to use an semi-arbitrary cut-off point) had little bearing on the accuracy of the Bible. For instance the existence of Ur - a major city that lasted a long time - has little bearing on the truthfulness of the Bible stories about Abraham.

quote:

---

the question ppl have to ask themselves is would a book of myth and legend contain so many real places and people and dates and times

---

The question people have to ask themselves is why you insist on engaging in misepresentation, despite all the warnings I've given.As I stated in this thread the Bible is a collection of works which have to be judged individually.The only book that I described as myth and legend was Genesis.Unsurprisingly very few of your examples have anything to do with Genesis, and those that do contain few people that can be confirmed to be real. And of course, place names tend to persist. Are we to believe that the Egyptian story of Osiris is not myth because the river Nile really exists ?

quote:

---

compare the bible to other 'real' myths and legends and the difference will be glaringly obvious

---

Do so with an honest and fair eye - and without misrepresenting my position - and you will see that I am right.