King David's Palace Found

New York Times This is obviously a huge find and another historical evidence (if it proves beyond doubt to be true) in support of the bible.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

While it's easy to agree that this has the potential to be a hugely important find...It still wouldn't prove anything regarding the Bible.Many fiction authors today write stories that involve real ypeople, real locations. None of them are true.If this is David's Palace, that's great, but in no way does it "prove the Bible" to be true. After all, Jerusalem exists - but just because the Bible talks about it doesn't make the Bible true.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't the bible: inerrancy and accuracy forum be a better place for this thread? it seems to be about archaeology, not scriptural interpretation.

---

אָרַח

yes, and no. it doesn't prove the bible is accurate -- but it CAN prove something: it could concievably prove that king david was a real person. it wouldn't prove the accuracy of the information in accounts by any means -- but it would be more than we have right now.currently, there is very little indication that king david even was a real person. we have one stone which mentions the name of the family of david, but that's about it.finding his court would be an immense step forward in showing that the book of samuel is at least BASED on real people/events and not totally fictitious.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-16-2005 03:58 PM

---

אָרַח

Why do you people keep reading that I am citing these things as making the bible true? I'm not, and it doesn't. What it is though, is evidence that supports the bible's historical accuracy.And yes, arach is right, this should be in bible accuracy and innerancy. I neglected to put that in the OP because it is a spin off topic from the pool.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

Not true. It would prove that King David really did exist and wasn’t just a biblical myth. That is significant. If this holds, then it would be independent verification of the existence of King David and his kingdom. It would show that Jerusalem was more than just a small village on a hill during the time of King David as skeptics have claimed. It would show that the Book of Jeremiah was correct when it referenced Jehucal son of Shelemiah in Jeremiah 37. It would help solidify the claim that Jews were correct in considering Jerusalem as their ancestral home in contrast to skeptical claims to the contrary.It certainly doesn’t prove everything in the Bible to be true, any more than land mammals to whale fossils prove evolution to be true, but let’s give credit where it is due. This could be a huge find. Makes one wonder what could be uncovered if not for politics.

Thread moved here from the Bible Study forum.

Yes, it could verify that David was an actual person.I took this:

quote:

---

historical evidence (if it proves beyond doubt to be true) in support of the bible.

---

to mean more than Tal intended, apparently. If this find is confirmed to be what they think it is, then one more person in the Bible would have a historical basis in fact.My point was that, historical basis for certain stories or not, individual archeological finds cannot prove the Bible as a whole to be historically accurate. We have far too many examples of historical inaccuracy for that.I apoligize for misunderstanding.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

actually, as the find is a significant building and is from that period, it refutes that claim whether or not it's david's palace. uh oh. more fuel to the fire. actually, evolution is a pretty small concept compared to biblical inerrancy. whales evolving from land mammals proves evolution happens, period. but finding king david's palace doesn't prove every "jot and tittle" of the bible to be the word of god.but yes, it's a very significant find, whether or not it's proof of david.

---

אָרַח

Nothing found at the site offers any indication that David existed.The only link is the dating - itself very uncertain at the time the article was written.

Actually, whales evolving from land mammals is one piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. It contributes to the overwhelming evidence that evolution did happen. But it is not definitive proof in and of itself. My analogy was intended to show, in a similar fashion, that although this discovery would not validate everything in the Bible, it would contribute to Biblical credibility.

I don't think it is fair to compare bilical accounts in regard to historical accuracies and the theory of evolution in regard to science.

no, i think he's backpedaling. he's been doing a lot of cut-n-paste religiously fundamental posts recently. seems to have taken up trolling, too, since he rarely actually respods to criticism.this is one of those wedge things. proving king david existed is a first step to showing the bible to be the complete, literal and inerrant word of god, which is the ultimate goal of a lot of fundamentalist arguments. it's sort of what id is to creationism: the id'ers will get really upset if you out them as religious people. they're trying to trick people into accepting religion as science through deception and disguise.

---

אָרַח

no, i don't think so either.archaeology tends to side with one but not the other.

---

אָרַח