"Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom"

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 17, 2005

This is potentially significant ...

The Bible says Edom's kings interacted with ancient Israel, but some scholars have confidently declared that no Edomite state could have existed that early.

The latest archaeological work indicates the Bible got it right, those experts got it wrong and some write-ups need rewriting. The findings also could buttress disputed biblical reports about kings David and Solomon.

- see Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom

We'll see ...

anders · Feb 17, 2005

In that story, I find no proof that the pots said they were made by Edomites. Even if there were such proof, spurious verified facts in a fairy tale don't make the complete tale true.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 17, 2005

anders said:
In that story, I find no proof that the pots said they were made by Edomites. Even if there were such proof, spurious verified facts in a fairy tale don't make the complete tale true.

The evidence seems real, the category "spurious verified facts" is solely the product of your imagination, and no one has suggested the discovery of verified facts (be the spurious or not) in a fairy-tail. Damn, anders, your as bad as a fear-ridden theist, ever ready to protest evidence out of concern that, left to the light of day, it may render his reality less certain.

Reactionary atheists are an embarrassment.

jewscout · Feb 17, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
This is potentially significant ...

We'll see ...

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it....

linwood · Feb 17, 2005

I don`t really see how the Bible could be wrong about geographical/historical events/places that existed/happened during the writers life or shortly prior as long as the writer was an informed person.

Nice find Deut

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 17, 2005

linwood said:
I don`t really see how the Bible could be wrong about geographical/historical events/places that existed/happened during the writers life or shortly prior as long as the writer was an informed person.

References to the Edomites has long been viewed as an anachronism and therefore an indication of late interpolation at best.

No*s · Feb 17, 2005

Thanks for the article Deut

.

linwood · Feb 17, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
References to the Edomites has long been viewed as an anachronism and therefore an indication of late interpolation at best.

So if this could be verified it would be pretty major.

thanks

chris9178 · Feb 18, 2005

Damn, anders, your as bad as a fear-ridden theist, ever ready to protest evidence out of concern that, left to the light of day, it may render his reality less certain.

Beautifully put..... for both sides.

As for the archaeology,I have to be realistic and say that I don't think it will help Christians out all that much. It's just supporting material events that we believed to be true. It will help make the Bible more credible as a history book, but not as God-inspired scripture.

As for the proof of David existing, I think I've read somewhere of some monument (a stile?) unearthed from the time of Sennacherib???? (some ancient Assyrian ruler I think), whic makes reference to "David's household" (Israel).

It will be funny to see how many creationists will use this carbon dating to "prove" the Bible, but will later discredit it as a means to prove evolution....

anders · Feb 19, 2005

For the Tell Dan stele "proof", try http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000056-6.html.
IMO, a major point is the #4: bytdwd is one word.
Professor Kamal Salibi writes at http://www.cwo.com/~thowoods/salibitxt.htm

. In line 9, the reading of BYTDWD as a construct (BYT + DWD) referring to the "house of David" by name is unjustified, as + BYTDWD + features in that line as a single word. Taken as one word, the initial B in B-YTDWD would be the prepositional B, leaving YTDWD as possibly a place name (archaic noun formation from the hithpa`el form of DWD, "love, have affection for, be related"?) One would only be justified in reading the word as the construct BYT + DWD if it can be demonstrated that other constructs in this inscription, or in the Moabite stele, feature as one word, which to my knowledge they do not.

For another stele, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, #5 is valid.

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.

For more information, search the Internet for, for example, "Tell Dan stele" or "The House of David Inscription"´or "bytdwd". You will nowhere find credible interpretations giving proof for the existence of David. The picture at http://www.scotlandroyalty.org/house-of-david.html gives you an impression of the tiny size of the Tell Dan fragments (some 9 by 12 inches). Note that the image is carefully made so small that you can't distinguish the word dividers (they are vertically centered dots).

michel · Feb 19, 2005

chris9178 said:
Beautifully put..... for both sides.
As for the archaeology,I have to be realistic and say that I don't think it will help Christians out all that much. It's just supporting material events that we believed to be true. It will help make the Bible more credible as a history book, but not as God-inspired scripture.
As for the proof of David existing, I think I've read somewhere of some monument (a stile?) unearthed from the time of Sennacherib???? (some ancient Assyrian ruler I think), whic makes reference to "David's household" (Israel).
It will be funny to see how many creationists will use this carbon dating to "prove" the Bible, but will later discredit it as a means to prove evolution....

Beautifully put..... for both sides. Agreed; Although I cannot really see that this is going to change my belief system. A story, passed by word of mouth, before it could be written, with perhaps the occasional embelishments does nothing to devalue the bible as a 'manual for good living and a true belief in God and Christ' in my eyes.

chris9178 · Feb 19, 2005

anders:

For the Tell Dan stele "proof", try http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000056-6.html.
IMO, a major point is the #4: bytdwd is one word.
Professor Kamal ..................

I can't put it any better than Deut, so I won't try to.

Damn, anders, your as bad as a fear-ridden theist, ever ready to protest evidence out of concern that, left to the light of day, it may render his reality less certain.

Reactionary atheists are an embarrassment.

anders · Feb 20, 2005

I don't protest against any evidence. I use the evident facts. Why read something that isn't there? There is no other case on the fragments where the word separator has been left out.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 25, 2005

anders said:
You will nowhere find credible interpretations giving proof for the existence of David.

Your sentence is sadly incoherent and symptomatic. What could "credible interpretations giving proof" possibly mean?

anders · Feb 25, 2005

OK, I admit that I'm not a native speaker (or writer) of English. What about using a little imagination? I have to do that quite often when translating badly written English texts.

So, I ask you to present proof for the existence of David.

Satisfied?

"Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom"

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

anders

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

jewscout

Religious Zionist

linwood

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

No*s

Captain Obvious

linwood

Well-Known Member

chris9178

Member

anders

Well-Known Member

michel

Administrator Emeritus

chris9178

Member

anders

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

anders

Well-Known Member