Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sad what Bible Inerrancy can do to a mind!
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 76 of 79 (46057)
07-15-2003 5:50 AM


No end to the madness!
I was sent this page by a believer who claims it confirms the historicity of King David.
http://www.geocities.com/...ns/Forum/5499/bom/KingDavid.html
The 'evidence' in question is as follows:
In recent years, two steles (large stones with writing on them) have been found. The more famous of the two is the Tel Dan Stele, and the other is the Moabite Stone. They were written by enemies of Israel in the 9th century BC and include the phrase: "House of David." In essence, it is strong evidence of the historicity of David by extraneous sources.
This is a very misleading paragraph, and displays a complete ignorance of the subject matter.
We have here four sentences, and these four sentences include at least seven inaccurate claims. I got bored when i got to number seven, I am sure I could find more but why bother?
1. The most blatant misrepresentation is that both these insciptions were found 'recently.' True enough, the Tel Dan Stele was found in the early 1990's, but when was the Moabite Stone found? Would it surprise you to know that it was found 135 years ago! The Moabite Stone, or Mesha Stele was found at Dibon (Dhiban) in 1868
2. The Tel Dan Stele is not in fact ONE inscription. It is an amalgamation of three different fragments, one found in 1993 the other two found in 1994, 11 months later. There is still some debate into whether these three fragments have been joined together correctly.
3. As to which one is more famous, well that also is debatable, one of the inscriptions has a 126 year start on the other one and has been studied by many more scholars. So this is purely a personal, unsupported claim.
4. Both of these insciptions DO NOT contain phrase 'House of David.' Yes the Tel Dan Stele contains 'a' phrase 'bytdwd', but it is highly unlikely that it is referring to a dynasty. The phrase 'bytdwd' in the Tel Dan Stele does not have a word divider between the 'byt' and the 'dwd', which means that it is more likely to be a place name rather than a dynastic name for Judah.
5. The Moabite Stone does not contain the phrase 'House of David' either. This phrase has to be made up by inserting missing letters into the inscription, so technically, we dont know what it says. It has never been demonstrated that the Moabite Stone explicitly mentions the House of David.
6. The Tel Dan Stele may not even have been written in the 9th century BCE. Dating the stele was based partly on the writing found on a cup that was found in the level below where the stele was found. The cup may be better dated to the late 8th century BCE.
7. Finally, to claim that this is strong evidence to the historicity of King David shows that the author of this piece knows diddly about archaeology. Even if these inscriptions were accurate, they are not contemporaneous with David. The Tel Dan Stele may be as much as 200 years after David was said to have lived. If they are accurate they only record the fact that someone BELIEVED that they were part of King David's Dynasty. They do not confirm David's existence at all.
I am not sure what to make of this piece of 'scholarship.' It is from a free website of course, and not from an educational establishment. It is very poorly referenced, and simply accepts things at face value, and not even accurate face value at that. I do not know if this guy is blatantly lying or simply hasn't studied the inscriptions in question, of course, he may not want to investigate them in case it shatters his fantasy.
But the problem is, these misconceptions are rife on the Net, genuine people are being misled by nonsense like this, just as people are being misled over the evolution debate.
Needless to say, I replied to the person who supplied this reference, I sent a detailed, well referenced reply, that detailed the problems with taking these sources as reliable references to King David. I am sure you can guess the outcome, yup, a few Bible verses and a 'you believe what you want I will stick with God's Word'
Ah well, it passed a few hours, and hopefully maybe it has planted a seed in his head.
Brian.

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 79 (78526)
01-14-2004 10:17 PM


Dear Readers:
Here is a great discussion string regarding Bible inerrancy that supports the doctrine of Bible inerrancy:
http://EvC Forum: Bible inerrancy is well supported -->EvC Forum: Bible inerrancy is well supported
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2004 12:19 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 78 of 79 (78553)
01-15-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by kendemyer
01-14-2004 10:17 PM


All or nothing inerrancy?
It's interesting, that you bump a 6 month inactive topic, to promote an already active topic .
I've just skimmed this entire topic. It seemed to have drifted astray pretty much right away, but people may wish to take another look at message 1.
Now, I'll bring in a quote from another topic:
Ken said (or quoted?), at http://EvC Forum: Bible inerrancy is well supported
quote:
A gentleman who wrote an article to defend the Bible said if we cannot trust the Bible in mundane small and verifiable points then its bigger more untestable claims could be argued to be suspect.
This seems to be a view held by many creationists - The all true or all bad sort of dichotomy. This seems to be the case for both the Bible and matters of science.
While it is nice to get all the details right, other areas or the "big picture" can survive quite well, even with those other details being bad.
Terry, at "Terry's Talk Origins" seems to operate this way, in regards to "age of the earth" considerations. Whenever he finds new information, that says that some geologic feature is younger (or sometime older) that previously thought, he jumps to the conclusion that this is going to be a small step in the direction of the fall of "old earthism".
Enough for now,
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by kendemyer, posted 01-14-2004 10:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Ian C, posted 01-15-2004 9:43 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Ian C
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 79 (78750)
01-15-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Minnemooseus
01-15-2004 12:19 AM


Re: All or nothing inerrancy?
Much agreed -- back to on topic!
The rationalization mechanisms biblical literalists will use never cease to amaze me. But then, I didn't grow up in a religious household. For many of these people, their religion is the central aspect of their lives -- without they would be lost. Any slight attack on it seems to draw out the fight-or-flight instinct.
It reminds me of the Star Wars fans I grew up with. I am 29, and for most people about my age, Star Wars was the first movie we remember seeing. At the age of 3 or so, it wowed us with the special effects and that Darth Vader character was pretty cool (never mind that he was the bad guy -- what a costume!). We all got the action figures and played Star Wars at recess. Some fans with VCRs got to the point where they could recite the whole thing. For them, it was becoming that central pillar of their lives. I remember in 3rd grade someone emphatically insisting that the force was REAL and almost getting in a fight over it.
But sequels took time, and in that time we grew up. The second one was actually pretty good, and the Star Wars rapture continued, but by the third one, we were 9 years old and could actually think a bit. NOW we started to notice the dialogue was kind of stupid, the acting lame, and frankly the story kind of dumb. The big bad empire got whupped by a bunch of teddy bears with pointy sticks?? Come on . . . Some of us had read Dune and even realized that Lucas had borrowed quite liberally from it. Still, some could NOT outgrow their devotion to Lucas -- he did NOT rip off Frank Herbert. And Lucas' version was better anyway! Some still played Star Wars at recess, but many fewer now.
Fast forward 15 years to Star Wars Episode 1. Most of us thought it would be fun reliving a bit of our childhoods. Others took 3 days off of work to wait for tickets. Crazy? Not in the least -- it was going to be the event of our LIFETIMES (in retrospect, I saw it -- an event, but that summer I discovered girls was still better). Of course, the movie stunk. Lousy acting, stupid dialogue, and abhorrent characters. Still, these people did logical backflips to explain why it was such a great movie (you just don't understand what Lucas is trying to DO).
The point of this? There are two. First, people this devoted to ANYTHING, whether biblical inerrancy or Star Wars infallibility, need to work on objectivity in their lives. Until they develop a bit of this, no evidence will even cause them to QUESTION their beliefs. Secondly, I chose the Star Wars example because I KNOW there are Lucas defenders of both evolutionist and creationist leanings. So hopefully the evolutionists who are LIVID that I had the audacity to "attack" Lucas might develop a wee bit of sympathy for the biblical literalist's position.
Actually, just a bit of joking with that last bit -- hope it isn't too close to home for anyone!
Ian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2004 12:19 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024