Sheldon
Veteran Member
interesting analogy, imaginary games and imaginary deities.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
interesting analogy, imaginary games and imaginary deities.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I think you may have quoted the wrong post, only your reply seems to have nothing to do with my post?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Except, videogames are not imaginary. A digital world is created with computers, and humans explore those created worlds with avatars. We have begun to do what ancient man believed only God(s) could do. Speaking of imagination… try to imagine what worlds we will create with thousands of years experience, or more. What universes. At one point does a simulated reality become… another reality?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
A Christian could do so by redefining murder. Now the rest of us won't accept it, but he could fool himself into his act being justified.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
The means to imagine the games are real, what is imagined in them is not objectively real, the belief in a deity is real, but there is no objective evidence any deity is real.
Relevance?
By all means let your imagination be boundless, just don't leap from what is imagined to the assumption it is real, or even possible. Imagination is an essential component of science, but alone it is little more than wishful thinking and fantasy.
If it helps here emboldened in red is where your imagination turned into expectation of reality, without troubling even a pretence of objective evidence.
Last edited:
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
Sure it is. Everything that happens within a video game is happening- objectively- it simply takes place within another realm of existence. In this case, within a created digital world constructed by humans.
My response was never about that. It was about this: If an intelligent species develops the ability to create their own worlds- as we have done, and as many religious people believe their gods do- those worlds will likely include some kind of respawn system. What religions refer to as “resurrection” and “reincarnation”, are things we already do in our own primitive created worlds.
I’m not sure what you are even trying to argue. Life prefers to live. When we create worlds, we provide ways to experience them ourselves, and even return to those worlds… to continue where you left off, or to begin again. Stories about resurrections, reincarnation, or God(s) descending to Earth in human avatars- however rooted in fantasy and imagination- include these awesome concepts of rebirth (science fiction or otherwise) that humans have already begun to explore ourselves, in the most primitive forms, as “videogames”.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Definitely don't need permission. Or the condescending attitude. Passive aggressive.
You just called a:
PhD in Hebrew Bible
Harvard PhD historian
Jewish Rabbi
Lambert, W. G. (1965). "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis". The Journal of Theological Studies. Vol. 16,
Carr, David M. (1996). Reading the Fractures in Genesis. Westminster John Knox Press.
"Garbage".
And not only that but had the hypocracy to say I was "hand waving" earlier?? Now that was some hand waving.
Truly mind boggling? Historical fields that don't agree with your personal beliefs are "garbage"?
Ok so you do not care about what is actually true. No interest. But why do you pretend like you do when you often ask for sources? Why would you ask for sources and then proclaim a bunch of excellent scholars work is garbage? I don't see any counter arguments made by historians that you posted. So clearly this is your feelings on that matter. I wouldn't like it either if my beliefs were completely debunked by scholarship.
I didn't like it. I probably called it "garbage" at first out of anger.
Also, the Jewish people DO think Christinity is Pagan? That isn't "garbage". Tovia is a Rabbi and I've listened to his lectures.
That Harvard scholar is just yet another explaining that the Christian theology is a Hellenistic theology.
This isn't doubted? This just supports the Briticannica entry on Hellenistic ideas that spread to Christianity.
And Fransesca S.? She specializes in OT Hebrew and Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Sumerian religions.
Even Pastors who became historians know the OT used Mesopotamian myths. Note, as a rule modern scholars.
Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel
K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.
As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are
Last edited:
The problem is that you don't understand what is true.
These PhD don't agree with you:
- Joseph Alexanian, Trinity International University
- Carl E. Armerding, Schloss Mittersill Study Centre
- Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary
- David Baker, Ashland Theological Seminary
- William H. Barnes, North Central University
- Ronald A. Beers, Wheaton College
- Linda Belleville, Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana
- Barry J. Beitzel, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
- Daniel I. Block, Wheaton College
- Gerald Borchert, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary
- Dale A. Brueggemann, Assemblies of God Division of Foreign Missions
- Robert Bergen, Hannibal-LaGrange College
- Darrell Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary
- Frederic W. Bush, Fuller Theological Seminary
- Joyce Baldwin Caine, Trinity College, Bristol
- Greg Beale, Westminster Theological Seminary
- Craig Blomberg, Denver Seminary
- Gary M. Burge, Wheaton College
- Eugene Carpenter, Bethel College, Mishawaka, Indiana
- D. A. Carson, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
- Joseph Coleson, Nazarene Theological Seminary
- Philip W. Comfort, NT Coordinating Editor, Coastal Carolina University
- Peter Davids, St. Stephen’s University
- Raymond B. Dillard, Westminster Theological Seminary
- David A. Dorsey, Evangelical School of Theology
- Norman R. Ericson, Senior Translator, Wheaton College
- Terry Eves, Erskine College
- Daniel C. Fredericks, Belhaven College
- Mark D. Futato, Reformed Theological Seminary
- Robert Gordon, Cambridge University
- Douglas Green, Westminster Theological Seminary
- Douglas Gropp, Catholic University of America
- Robert Guelich, Fuller Theological Seminary
- George Guthrie, Union University
- Victor Hamilton, Asbury University
- R. K. Harrison, Wycliffe College
- Roy Hayden, Oral Roberts School of Theology
- Ted Hildebrandt, Gordon College
- Andrew Hill, Wheaton College
You just happen to pick one who is a Post hole Digger
would you like more? We run about 9 to 1 in my favor.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No, it's 100% historical scholars to about ZERO believe the supernatural narratives.
Dude, you just posted a list of THEOLOGIANS?????????????????????????????????????????????
Do you not realize a theologian starts out by ASSUMING the religion is true? It's a CREED? They study the religion attempting to find out what the deity actually meant.
They usually sign statements of intent that says they will never speak out against their faith before they start a position. Doctrinal statements. Licona was fired for suggesting the saints coming out of the grave was a metaphor.
Here is a problem.
I can also list 100 theologians in ISLAM, who have PhDs and will say the Quran is the ultimate updated word of God.
I can list Mormon PhD theologians who will say Mormonism is the true updated Christianity.
I can list Hindu PhD theologians who will say Krishna is the true personal deity to humanity and Brahman is the true deity.
And yes Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Crossan and others have debated PhD theologians and I have seen them all. The theologians do not know anything about the origins of the theology. They think it came from God right to the Bible. But Islamic theologians also think it came right from the same God to the Quran. Totally debunkable.
Historians, comparative religious studies and archaeologists are the people who look at all the evidence. What do historians of the day say, what do apologists of the day say, what is the evidence, literary analysis of the scripture. Is it historical style or is it mythology, does it parallell other works, does the theology come from older nearby cultures, and much more.
Theologians don't study that all the Christian theology can be found in Greek and Persian religions prior to Christianity and during the 2nd Temple Period both cultures occupied Israel and their myths greatly impacted the Hebrew religious thinkers? No. If you told this to a theologian they would be like "what"???
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]
But that's Sanders, Wright and Lambert. People whos life work is to study this.
All historians will say Krishna, the angel Gabrielle, Moroni and Jesus the son of a God, are fictional characters. And you know they are correct with 3 of those. So it's extremely likely it's all 4. The evidence points that way.
How hard is this to understand?
"When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.
No. We aren’t interested in that.
When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier
You know what I hear most from the theologians in debates against Ehrman and other historians - "Well I'm not a historian so..." followed by (after hearing evidence) "yeah but I still think it's true so let's move on..." they bought into a story and cannot accept it might not be true.
so as I said, I have been listening to theologians, reading theologians and they do not have counter evidence or even good evidence. It's all based on faith. Which is unreliable.
Last edited:
Yo, like I said, you are free to digest what unbelievers are dishing out.
I have a healthier diet.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
An unreal imaginary one.
Yes I understood your assertion, but what we imagine and create in games is not objectively real, and your leaping form one imaginary thing, to unevidenced assumptions about others, as I said the belief in a deity is real, but there is no objective evidence any deity is real. So making unevidenced assumptions about such deities is pretty meaningless. Though many people seem to enjoy it.
The "worlds we create in games are not real" so making arbitrary assumptions about terms used to describe those games, as if they imply imagined supernatural claims religions are real is nonsensical. Like making assumptions about dinosaurs based on the cartoon the Flintstones.
Ok, but that doesn't make them real, just imaginary concepts people enjoy thinking about.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
You know men. So loving. Hated women for so long because of what they wrote. Yet want her love. Need her children to continue himself. So false preached.Exodus 22:18
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
So you ask him a basic I'm human..m you're human mutual equal one species by two with earths God?
Yes.
Okay what did you do wrong brother human? What didn't you confess to?
Ummmm he says. That science is wrong and evil!!!!
Why brother?
Well my homosexual I think I'm a Woman when I'm not self taught me.
After life bio conscious sacrifice.
Heard voices speaking.
Human heard in their own head. Brain mind changed. Unnatural voice recording shared in communications until voice disappears in burning. Gets cooled removed. Never pondered why.
Reason why. Ai effect.
Okay. What did you do wrong?
I made potents Alchemy nuclear technology.
Oh so making substances change is evil?
Yes.
Why?
Gods products rock are greatest highest as each one type natural form. Don't name it. Don't change it.
Otherwise genetics change of everything. You even combust nature.
Okay. You knew.
Yes mother space womb zero mother of God changed.
Who changed it?
My maths number calculus had. Wild powers. Released. The science man. Prophet predictor calculus.
Okay so it's a woman is it?
No.
Why a witch? I burnt my life and witch belonged to the tree term.
Okay so you began to be mind changed as a man. You became aware women mother owned your life. You however never owned her ovary cell?
Yes.
I heard voices unnatural transmitted into evil burning's. So unnatural voices spoke too.
Why lie about it?
As I was self Idolating as king lord rich man brain changed star fall caused first. So how could I be wrong. As my memory reasoned back to him when science caused it himself.
Not my fault is his excuse always.
Learnt. A past life sister vision. Lived in forest growing herbs. Medicines by evil Roman control removed. Doing it secretly for family. They found her and killed her.
Asked why. Advice said herbal medicines were potents. Considered evil too. As their life's mind were badly attacked by returning star fall they'd lost all rationality.
True history about the rich man egotist journey.
joelr
Well-Known Member
No you didn't say that. You thought theologians and historians look at history the same. They do not. As clear demonstration just look at Islamic PhD theologians and similar:
Omar Ahmed Shahin, Ph.D.
Dean of Islamic Studies
Naser Alshaikh, Ph.D.
Chair of the Exegesis Department
Safwat Ali Morsy Mahgoob, Ph.D.
Chair of the Jurisprudence and its Foundations Department
Mohamed Moussa Ph.D.
Chair of the Hadeeth Department
Mohammad Qatanani, Ph.D.
Hana Taleb Jaber, Ph.D.
Shaykh Mohamed Elbar, Ph.D.
Ahmad Khaled Yousef Shukri, Ph.D.
Watheq Alobaidi, Ph.D.
Imam Aly Soliman Mohamed Kamel, M.Th.
So these PhDs will tell you the Quran is the absolute true word from Yahweh, updated and 100% true. It also has information for Christians and Jewish people.
Same with Hindu PhD theologians.
Except you don't believe either religion is true at all. So we can see that theologians are not looking at the big picture. They are assuming a religion is true and studying it as if it were true.
Same for Christian theologians. They do not deal with the questions, is this religion actually true, and all of the applied studies that come from that belief have not answered the question and are assuming it is.
So a "non-believer" historian would write a book about Hinduism and say it's an ancient mythology with laws, philosophy and so on. A "non-believer" historian would write a monograph about Islam saying it used the OT, combined it with religious beliefs that were becoming popular in that area, used Greek scientific information and framed it as if it was given by God, and so on.
That would be the true explanation of Islam.
They do the same for Christianity and Judaism.
The difference is the believers go into theology because they have no interest in discovering if their beliefs are warranted. This is the same in all 3. Sometimes a believer does become a historian like Bart Ehrman or Dr Josh Bowen and see that it isn't real and become non-believers because that is WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS. When they see the historical evidence they do not go into denial, which is also common.
Now if the evidence showed any truth in these religions, they would explain the ways they look to be true. There are zero ways any of these religions are true. So it is a fallacy to think being a "non-believer" has any impact on the work. You have entered a bizarre contention that somehow facts change because a person is a "non-believer"?? Nonsense.
The only change here is that a believer who is a theologian follows a careful path of study and apologetics to never deal with issues that demonstrate it's not real. When confronted in all of the many debates they cannot answer except to say "well I believe it's true anyways". You know Islam isn't true yet there are hundreds of scholars and holy men. Christianity is no different.
All of the apologetics have been shown to be wrong in some way.
The fact that Islamic theologians with PhDs are just as sure their religion is complete truth as Christian shows the massive confirmation bias theologians have by not facing evidence.
Watching 2 theologians from each religion debate is very telling. It's a war of "it's true because my book says so".
I am interested in what is actually true.
Sure, if by healthier you mean more confirmation bias. You gave a list of people who study the religion with the assumption it's true? You cannot have more cognitive dissonance and bias than that.
If it's healthier for you to not know the truth then sure, it's healthier. Denial can be healthier sometimes.
Last edited:
Yes... you have your list but my list is still 9 to 1.
Even "PhD" scholars said there was not such thing as a King David... until they were proved wrong (they were wrong from the beginning, of course - as they are now)
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Human just human men's scientific answer.
When new science experiments took away your updated Pyramid models cooling controls. Manually applied by human scientists. Power plant type.
Earth gained new empty tombs. Sin holes. Sink holes. New holes.
I got bio life hurt. I saw images emerge and arise of dead humans. After I noticed black wisping smoke out of ground mass and in earths gas heavens.
They were Wearing costumes clothing of their own era. Proven a long time dead.
So yes the resurrection happened before as a humans experience said it had seen it before.
The only term not the same was a four day O God planet body shift as ground mass....by earthquake holding.
As space heavens today is different mass pressures. Earth mass owns different mass also. Pressures never the same proven between Moses science caused event and Jesus.
Same earth O not the same pressures.
Why it wasn't exact to scare the beejezus out of you as it had before.
You are all waiting for number three earths change event. Not Moses..not Jesus ......a new one.
As men are god ...don't you know...a planets history.
When new science experiments took away your updated Pyramid models cooling controls. Manually applied by human scientists. Power plant type.
Earth gained new empty tombs. Sin holes. Sink holes. New holes.
I got bio life hurt. I saw images emerge and arise of dead humans. After I noticed black wisping smoke out of ground mass and in earths gas heavens.
They were Wearing costumes clothing of their own era. Proven a long time dead.
So yes the resurrection happened before as a humans experience said it had seen it before.
The only term not the same was a four day O God planet body shift as ground mass....by earthquake holding.
As space heavens today is different mass pressures. Earth mass owns different mass also. Pressures never the same proven between Moses science caused event and Jesus.
Same earth O not the same pressures.
Why it wasn't exact to scare the beejezus out of you as it had before.
You are all waiting for number three earths change event. Not Moses..not Jesus ......a new one.
As men are god ...don't you know...a planets history.
joelr
Well-Known Member
I don't know why simple concepts are so hard for you sometimes? I don't have a "list". Historians do not believe myths are real. Not Islam and not Christianity. They are legends with fictional characters and the stories demonstrate that in many ways.
Theologians in EVERY religion study the theology and assume it's real.
Every religion has a long list of theologians who will say their religion is the true word of God. Islam, Christianity, Judaism.......
But historians look at the big picture and do not make assumptions, they investigate evidence. In that respect Islam and Christianity are both equally as unlikely to be anything but myths.
This "9 to 1" is nonsense because you listed only theologians? You could list 100 theologians, of course they think their religion is real be it Islam, Christianity, Hinduism.... they take it on faith and that's it?
So a theologian is not a good representation of weather something is true or not. An Islamic theologian will tell you God spoke to Muhammad and Christianity is wrong.
A Christian theologian will say th eopposite.
But all historians know there is no actual good evidence for any of them. There are many lines of evidence that they are made up stories however. Many.
Well first it isn't uncommon for writers to set myths in real places and deities among real kings. It was done in Hinduism and probably all mythology. The Greek epics are believed to have featured some real wars and leaders.
There might have been a King David. Odd that you ignore all the other archaeology about the OT however? So you are ok with just finds that confirm things and all the others you sweep under the rug?
Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.
Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.
"
Q: Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?
Dever: We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen.
"
William Dever
Or these views from Biblical archaeology related to King David:
"
Of the evidence in question, John Haralson Hayes and James Maxwell Miller wrote in 2006: "If one is not convinced in advance by the biblical profile, then there is nothing in the archaeological evidence itself to suggest that much of consequence was going on in Palestine during the tenth century BCE, and certainly nothing to suggest that Jerusalem was a great political and cultural center."[138] This echoed the 1995 conclusion of Amélie Kuhrt, who noted that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," while noting, "against this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."[139]
In 2007, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman stated that the archaeological evidence shows that Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village. The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over an area which cannot be described as a state or as a kingdom, but more as a chiefdom, much smaller and always overshadowed by the older and more powerful kingdom of Israel to the north.[140] They posited that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at the time, and that later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.[141] They noted a lack of archeological evidence for David's military campaigns and a relative underdevelopment of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, compared to a more developed and urbanized Samaria, capital of Israel during the 9th century BCE.[142][143][144]
In 2014, Amihai Mazar wrote that the United Monarchy of the 10th century BCE can be described as a "state in development".[145] He has also compared David to Labaya, a Caananite warlord living during the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten. While Mazar believes that David reigned over Israel during the 11th century BCE, he argues that much of the Biblical text is “literary-legendary nature”.[146] According to William G. Dever, the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon are reasonably well attested, but "most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom".[[[Wikipedia:Citing_sources|page needed]]]_151-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-size: 11.2px;">[147][[[Wikipedia:Citing_sources|page needed]]]_152-0" class="reference" style="line-height: 1; unicode-bidi: isolate; white-space: nowrap; font-size: 11.2px;">[148][149]
Lester L. Grabbe wrote in 2017 that: "The main question is what kind of settlement Jerusalem was in Iron IIA: was it a minor settlement, perhaps a large village or possibly a citadel but not a city, or was it the capital of a flourishing – or at least an emerging – state? Assessments differ considerably …"[150] Isaac Kalimi wrote in 2018 that: "No contemporaneous extra-biblical source offers any account of the political situation in Israel and Judah during the tenth century BCE, and as we have seen, the archaeological remains themselves cannot provide any unambiguous evidence of events."[12]
Me thinks thou protests too much.
"The most stunning aspect of the document is the reference to Judah as the “House of David.” For the first time, it was thought, the name David appeared in an extra-Biblical document. At about the same time, however, two French scholars, André Lemaire (1994) and Émile Puech (1994), independently recognized the same phrase in the Mesha Inscription, which has been around for well over 100 years (Wood 1995). It now likely that the name David is in a third inscription. Egyptologist K.A. Kitchen believes that the phrase “highland of David” appears in the Shishak inscription in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, Egypt (1997: 39–41). All this at a time when a number of scholars were challenging the existence of the United Monarchy and a king name David!
Unfortunately, the beginning of the Tel Dan Stela is missing. This is where the name of the king who commissioned the memorial, and the event which occasioned it, would have been recorded. With the discovery of Fragment B, however, we can assign the stela’s place in history with near certainty. Parts of the names of two kings are preserved in Fragment B: Joram, son of Ahab, king of Israel from 852 to 841 BC, and Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah (the House of David) in 841 BC. With this new information it is possible to assign the stela to Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, who undoubtedly set it up in Dan to commemorate his victory over Joram and Ahaziah at Ramoth-Gilead in ca. 841 BC (2 Kgs 8:28–29).
"
Tel Dan Stela & the Kings of Aram & Israel - Associates for Biblical Research
You seem to think that archaeology is so advanced as to have all information. We are just at the tip of discoveries. The "House of David" was quite real. Jerusalem was quite real. His domain was the totality of what God have them.
You are holding onto the fallacy that if there is no archaeological proof (at this time) means it never was real.
Why does my position rub you wrong? Why do you find it so necessary that it be wrong?
joelr
Well-Known Member
That is quite wrong? I actually said almost exactly the same thing you are saying about David? There probably was a King David? I never said Jerusalem wasn't real? Mythology generally does use actual historical people and sets the deities among them. Paroah Akhenate, who was real, communicated and popularized the first monotheistic deity Aten in stories.
Dever mentions Jerusalem? But archaeology also shows us the Israelites were smaller than recorded, did not conquer the Canaanites but emerged from them and not Egypt. Those are part of the national myth to bind the people to an origin.
The "God" in every culture was supreme and 100% myth. Including Yahweh. Although he wasn't supreme at first and had a consort Ashera according to Archaeologists. Ashera was also a Canaanite goddess.
Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.
Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.
Q: Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?
Dever: We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen.
THE ORIGINS OF ISRAEL
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?
Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.
So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.
I never said or implied that? But I'm saying the opposite, we have proof that the story of the Israelites is not exactly how it's recorded in stories. You keep changing things I say?
Yahweh has a goddess, Israel was much smaller than portrayed, they came from Cannan, I'm actually listening to what archaeologists are saying?? The historical people in religions should be real people. I was surprised to hear Moses and the Patriarchs were probably not.
Q: If the Bible's story of Joshua's conquest isn't entirely historic, what is its meaning?
Dever: Why was it told? Well, it was told because there were probably armed conflicts here and there, and these become a part of the story glorifying the career of Joshua, commander in chief of the Israelite forces. I suspect that there is a historical kernel, and there are a few sites that may well have been destroyed by these Israelites, such as Hazor in Galilee, or perhaps a site or two in the south.
Q: Were the people who became Israelites in some sense not "the chosen people" but rather "the choosing people"—choosing to be free of their Canaanite past?
Dever: Some liberation theologians and some archeologists have argued that early Israel was a kind of revolutionary social movement. These were people rebelling against their corrupt Canaanite overlords. In my recent book on early Israel I characterize the Israelite movement as an agrarian social reform. These are pioneers in the hill country who are fleeing the urban centers, the old Canaanite cities, which are in a process of collapse. And in particular they are throwing off the yoke of their Canaanite and Egyptian overlords. They are declaring independence.
Now, why these people were willing to take such a risk, colonizing the hill country frontier, is very difficult to know. I think there were social and economic compulsions, but I would be the first to say I think it was probably also a new religious vision.
That is passive aggressive. After saying things like "Yo, like I said, you are free to digest what unbelievers are dishing out." without providing counter evidence and making boldface claims against scholars who are literally just reposting on facts and I simply stand up for critical thinking, framing it as "why does my position rub you wrong" is totally PG.
It's not your position, it's your dodging truth over anecdotal claims and then acting like it's ME who has an issue? It isn't that I find it necessary it's that claims without good evidence probably are wrong. I'm fairly sure you feel the same if someone spoke that way about the Quran or a J Witness telling you you're going to hell for being in the wrong sect. They also are using anecdotal evidence, things people told them, JW theologians and their apologetics. JW is very debunkable. Except to them who just block their ears and say Satan got to the scholars and tricked them. Not much different than calling them "unbelievers". Especially when they spent years studying and then realized it wasn't real.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Also, I looked up William Dever on that site you linked to to read more of his work. Very dissapointing. More bias garbage. Do you ever just read actual research that isn't bias and is interested in what facts are eve if they don't match your beliefs?
"The tax-payer funded Public Broadcasting System (PBS) will present a program this fall that says the Old Testament is a bunch of made-up stories that never happened. "The Bible's Buried Secrets" says the Bible is not true. It is scheduled to air on November 18.
Archaeologist William Dever said: "...It's (The Bible's Buried Secrets) designed for intelligent people who are willing to change their mind. …it will give intelligent people who want to read the Bible in a modern way a chance. If we insist on reading the Bible literally, in 25 years, nobody will read it any longer."
The implication, of course, is that people who take the Bible literally are not intelligent! The Bible has been read literally for thousands of years, so we can be sure that Dr. Dever's proclamations are nothing but empty rhetoric.
ABR asks that you pray for:
1. The ABR ministry to continue to provide materials and research to refute programs like "The Bible's Buried Secrets".
2. William Dever, who has been a well-known and respected archaeologist for decades, but continues to attack the Scriptures with such outrageous statements. Pray for his return to the evangelical roots of his youth.
3. For the youth of America not to be taken in by such anti-Bible propaganda.
For biblical minimalists, the United Monarchy is very nearly a fiction. They believe that if David and Solomon existed, they were nothing more than petty chieftains. Hoffmeier summarizes the minimalist position this way: 'f David and Solomon did exist, they were simply pastorialist chieftains from the hills of Judea, and the military exploits of David and the glories of Solomon were gross exaggerations from later times' (Hoffmeier, 2008, p. 87). In other words, there were no grand palaces and no royal inscriptions. In short-no kingdom."
Dever and many other Biblical archaeologists are just doing work and reporting what they find. By saying these things against Dever that is clearly an apologist only site where only bias material is allowed.
William Dever, Professor Emeritus of the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject.
All Dever is saying that they are upset about is the OT is to be read more as mythology, Noahs arc and Genesis. It's accepted even by most Christians and Christian scholarship that those are Mesopotamian stories re-worked for the Israelites.
So your latest source is crank.
Let's try britannica
David | Biography, Summary, Reign, & Facts
"The primary evidence for David’s career consists of several chapters in the books 1 and 2 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The Psalms are also attributed to him, a tribute to his legendary skill as a poet and hymnodist. Material evidence for his reign, while a matter of intense debate among scholars, is scant. Some scholars claim to have discovered artifacts that corroborate the biblical account of David’s kingdom. Others assert that the archaeological record strongly suggests that David was not the grand ruler of a rising kingdom but merely a gifted tribal leader of a pastoral, rather than urban, society. A fragment from a stone stele mentioning the “House of David” (a reference to his political dynasty) was inscribed more than a century after the traditional date of his reign and is not accepted by all scholars. The following article is largely drawn from the biblical account of David’s reign.
and worldhistory
As with his successor, King Solomon, little evidence has been uncovered to prove the historical existence of King David; however, recently discovered direct and indirect evidence provides greater substantiation for David's life and kingship (although little to back up the Biblical assertions and specific events during his reign). In 1993 CE, Avraham Biran discovered the Tel Dan Inscription on a broken stele in northern Israel. The inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over its southern neighbors, and specifically references both the “king of Israel,” and the “king of the House of David.” This is perhaps the earliest, direct, historical evidence for the Davidic Dynasty in Israel although the Mesha Stele, discovered by Bedouins in the 1800s CE who lived by the Jordan and Arnon rivers, also mentions "the House of David," written in Moabite around a century after the supposed reign of King David.
King David
So sounds like there was probably a King David. Biblical tales may just be stories.