Anat

Even if there is a reference to the House of David it does not mean anything about Biblical David is true. Especially not his conquests and the size of his kingdom. Solomon is even less credible. Judah was a nowhere until the fall of Samaria removed the competition from north and brought an increased population as refugees.

Palestine is the acceptable name in English of the geographical unit on the south-eastern end of the Mediterranean. In scientific discourse it is the English translation of 'Eretz Yisrael'. When I speak Hebrew I use the Hebrew name, when I speak English I use the English name. (The same as France vs Tzarfat). In any case, you failed to show how the Merneptah stele supports a sojourn of Israelites *in* Egypt for any period of time.

Belief in creator gods goes much earlier than Israelites - one of the Biblical creation myths is an adaptation of the earlier Mesopotamian one. What do you make of references to YHWH of Samaria or YHWH of Teman on Ostraca from the hill country? What do you make of the Qumran version of Deuteronomy 32:8 (which has 'sons of El' as opposed to 'sons of Israel' in the Masoretic version)? Isn't that evidence that people in Israel and Judah, even as late as Helenic times, held henotheistic beliefs (or monloatric practices)?

From your previous post:
What are you talking about? The sea Peoples and the Philistines arrived in the eastern Mediterranean in the late 13th century BCE and early 12 century BCE, as attested by the sacking of Ugarit and the dating of their culture in places like Gath and Ashkelon. In the alleged age of the Patriarchs there were no Philistines in the area.

In what way did the religious beliefs and practices of the people who lived in Judah in the days of, say, Hezekiah, resemble the beliefs and practices of the Jews who wrote the Talmud?

The book of Esther is a work of fiction. The events described there do not match anything from Persian sources. Daniel is about the events of the Helenic persecution written as if they took place in the Babylonian exile. The Bible can't be taken at face value, without comparing its contents to information from other sources such as physical finds and written sources from other relevant cultures. And documents that can be dated physically are generally more credible than accounts that were written down later.

IamJoseph

Your in denial and cannot admit when you've been show wrong. First you claim David is a myth, now you go on about it does not mean anything if a 3000 year figure is backed by archeological relics. I asked you to show another 3000 year figure with equivalent evidence - then discuss what is true or not. Do you have a problem here?

Thanks for hanging yourself with your own proof. If his conquests and size were not the size it should be - it is proof of his existence - he had a smaller kingdom and conqerings. :wave:

Who prevailed over the Philistines - and how come no other nations could - because they had even smaller conquering ability than David? :wave:

This is a lie-by-omission. You left out that this name was dumped on the Jewish homeland, and till 1960, only Jews were Palestenians. And stop trying to show if you know Hebrew your are also correct - your not in anything you stated so far.





No - I did not fail at all. :wave:

How foolish can you be. There is no such word as YHWH. This is an anagram, using the first alphabets of words, made as an abbreviation, owing to a forbiddence of using the name in vain. Its like FBI for Federal Investigative Bureau - no possibility of any of those two coming from elsewhere. And your history is also meaningless - Hebrew was NOT spoken in Meso! I'm surprised so many of the learned here never picked it up! Meso was not Monotheistic either.

The Quran is a recent work and cannot be used to define the Hebrew, which is 2500 years older. El is only a prefix for Sir or Lord, and predates the hebrew. That it is used in the Hebrew to signify a High One shows the Hebrew is authentically contemporary - it does not ipact on the Hebrew Monotheism sectors.

The Philistines were around when the Hebrew were in Egypt, which is 250 years after Abraham. The Philistines are first mentioned in the Hebrew writings.

I haven't a clue what your talking about here. The talmud was written in babylon, and is based on the Hebrew bible. This is proof the Hebrew was complete and established in 586 BCE, when the temple was destroyed.

That book also has greater historical credibility than any Christian or Islamic scripture, and is used by archeologists to learn what the Babylonian months were called, the names of its kings, is cultures and diets, its religions, priests, contemporary names, how far the Persian empire travelled eastwards, etc, etc. You never showed which verse or description is ficticious, nor who else wrote it. Your proof is nil. You sound like an avid Finklestine fan too.

Johnny Skeptic

Rather, even if David existed, you have not shown that a God had anything to do with him, in which case David was a historical character just like billions of other people were, and some Bible writers added some supernatural myths to the live of a person's life who is alleged to have existed.

Skeptic historians agree with Christians and Jews that Nebuchadnezzar existed, but not that he ate grass like cows. Why should skeptic historians believe that Nebuchadnezzar ate grass like cows?

I did not claim that, but as I showed, it doesn't make any difference if David existed, or for that matter if Noah existed.

Sure because it doesn't mean anything if you are going to make supernatural implications. If you are not going to make supernatural implications, then all that you are trying to do is to reasonably verify the existence of ordinary people who did ordinary things without the help of a God. If that is all that you are trying to do, that is fine, in which case I will grant you for the sake of argument that David existed, but that he was just an ordinary man than never had any contact with a God.

The existence of Alexander the Great, over 2300 years ago, is much better documented than the existence of David. Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_knot

Almost no one believes that myth.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima

Obviously, you do not believe that the three girls saw the Virgin Mary. Although it is debatable whether or not David existed, it is not debatable whether or not the girls existed, and they lived less than 100 years ago, not thousands of years ago.

Many other myths mention real people and places. In addition, what about dreams? Many religious writers based some of their writings on dreams. Daniel based some of his writings on dreams. Maybe the stories of Noah and David were based upon dreams, and were written centuries after the supposed facts. How reliable are dreams? Obviously, not reliable at all unless they can reasonably be verified.

IamJoseph

Seems like not a verse in any post I can say 'YES!' to. There is a misplaced 'rather' here, and here's your glitch if you quote the Hebrew. This writings says two things concerning the Creator premise, and is thus very different from the NT.

[1] There is a Creator. [2] The Creator cannot be proven.

That's a bit like the Yossarian enigma in Catch 22. Clearly you have not factored in the 2nd clause, which makes the Hebrew bible the only truthful treatise around, and I know of no other scripture which says that!

Compare it with the Judas claim, which is a part of the english vocab today, and guess what happens when you ask a Christian two simple words: PROVE IT! Guess what happens, according to the law which requires proof of the charge of murder - the penalty becomes reversed. So I fail to see why the focus would be on the only truthful writings in the world today - you have failed to give points for the vindicated. Here, the Hebrew is proven - and the lack of counter proof is the loser.

IamJoseph

That is a reference to his defeat only.We can say also, that Mighty Rome ate grass after its destruction of Jerusalem. One must understand the language of the times they discuss.




The greatest proof and honor of Alexander is from the Hebrew: namely the translation of the Septuagint, which was his initiation. This, more than any wars, marks the greatest impact of Aexander - it changed the world and the universe for humanity. I found the history of Alex, as made by Europe, a mockery - they hardly mention his historical visit to Jerusalem, its outcome and his interaction with the priests and the great parades which welcomed him - he actually bowed to the preists - a reversal of how others greeted him.

You cannot compare Alexander proof with David's proof: for the later you have to prove a 3000 year figure as well. There's none to compare with!

Toto

The story that Josephus tells about Alexander visiting Jerusalem and bowing to the priests there is an obvious fairy tale with no historical validity.

arnoldo

Perhaps, however there is no question that Alexander the Great is described in the book of Daniel in verses;

A: 7:6

B: 8:5-8

C: 8:20-22

D: 11:3-4.

arnoldo

No, Job 38:1-7 also mentions sons of god (and a council) which doesn't indicate polytheism was a part of Judaic thought. In reference to the Qumran Deuteronomy 32:8, Michael S. Heiser, of the Dallas Theological Seminary, offers a scholarly, if not disinterested, article;

DEUTERONOMY 32:8 AND THE SONS OF GOD

andrewcriddle

For sea trade with Yemen and/or Eritrea (the probable location of Ophir) one has to use a port like Ezion-Geber. Ports on the Mediterranean would be useless.

Andrew Criddle

(Repost from memory of lost post)

IamJoseph

Why so? There are other writings which affirms it - though it is not acceptable to dispute Josephus, who is regarded one of the most accurate historical writers. Alexander did visit Jerusalem, which was allowed its autonomy [unlike with the later Greek rulers and Rome] and there was a massive celebration about it. The name Alexander was also accepted as a Jewish name thereafter, in his honor, and the Septuagint is a result of Alexendar's request.