What if God IS a farce?

by LouBelle 110 Replies latest jw friends

Dansk

G'mornin' Burn:
Regarding the links you referred me to:
> The "House of David" on the Tel Dan Stele.

The phrase byt dvd ('House of David') could refer to either a city, a region or a kingdom, and there's no evidence that it's the latter. So whilst it does prove the existence of an entity named 'House of David', we are still none the wiser regarding it's nature (and it certainly doesn't prove the empire of Solomon).

Besides, the fledgling kingdom of Judah (if it existed at all) was hardly in a position to field 1000?, 500?, even 250 chariots against the king of Damascus.

> The Mesha Stele mentions King Omri, who ruled in the northern kingdom of Israel after the united kingdom split.

Again, the Mesha stele doesn't prove that the united kingdom existed, only that Israel and Omri existed in the centuries following.

> The Shishak Relief depicts Egypt's victory over King Rehoboam, David's grandson, when Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem was sacked.

There are to my knowledge no personal names mentioned on the Sheshonq relief (there were no Pharaohs in Egypt named Shishak). And there's no mention of Jerusalem in the rather exhaustive list of Canaanitic cities (190).

> The Ahmose Stele describes catastrophic events in Egypt that map well to Biblical chronology for the events in Exodus.

The Ahmose stele describes the foreign Hyksos, who had ruled northern Egypt for some 100/200 years, being driven out by the Egyptians in the south (see my posts above) - and this is hardly what we read in the book of Exodus.

Actually, the story of the Exodus could have come from the Late Period (?).

David, Saul and Solomon may be purely mythical: dvd means 'beloved', s`vl means 'underworld' and the name Solomon is cognate with Canaanitic Shalim, god of sunset: the ancient world was replete with stories about gods dying, descending into the underworld and then being rescued by their beloved.
I hope this helps.
Didn't know you had a baby. Hope you are sleeping well
Best wishes,
Ian
passive suicide

I once read a book....I can't remember the title, nor the author.....( I know...real helpful huh...)anyways, the author was agnostic, and an accomplished physcisist (sp) ...He used a law called 'The law of specificity'...which basically says... something is so complicated,and 'specific', that the only way it could come about by chance it would take x amount of years.....he used the human dna....and came to the conclusion that for something as complicated, and specific as the human dna to come about by chance.....the universe as we know it would have to be a WHOLE LOT OLDER..... ...... he came to the conclusion that there must have been some sort of intelligent hand involved in creation....he called it 'Logos'...For us to just have evolved, the universe is just not old enough.....even monkeys shakin boxes haven't had enough time..... I am still an agnostic....but it does make ya think......comments anyone?
Superfine Apostate

> the universe as we know it would have to be a WHOLE LOT OLDER

then that guy did not understand the concept of "chance". if you calculate how many times you'd have to play the lottery to win it, you'd probably come up with several million times. still, some people win it at the first try.
Dansk

Hey SA:
if you calculate how many times you'd have to play the lottery to win it, you'd probably come up with several million times. still, some people win it at the first try.
That's jolly good for this early in the moring! Seriously, a good analogy!!
Ian
Superfine Apostate

cheers, dansk. you know, years ago i had this number-locked briefcase. some people always had their fun changing it's combination, so i'd have to sit through trying up to 999*2 combinations. of course they would not use "999" as a combination, so it never took all that long ;)
BurnTheShips

Dansk.
With the standard of evidence you demand, a number of other ancient peoples and kingdoms would have to be consigned to myth. You demand tangible archaeological evidence of a theoretical structure. This is similar to asking to find archaeological evidence to support the theories of Isaac Newton. You'll only find the literary evidence, not huge monuments. The short-lived United Monarchy may not have been more than a figurehead kingdom, one which was more a theoretical construct than an actual construct. It's kind of like me declaring a new
Kingdom of BurnTheShips right here in in my home country. The members of my family might recognize it. Maybe even the neighborhood. But really, its just a theoretical construction and how much real force does it have?
The phrase byt dvd ('House of David') could refer to either a city, a region or a kingdom, and there's no evidence that it's the latter. So whilst it does prove the existence of an entity named 'House of David', we are still none the wiser regarding it's nature (and it certainly doesn't prove the empire of Solomon).
Taken in context with the ancient texts it is highly suggestive and supportive, your opinion notwithstanding. I think you underestimate the evidence supplied by the archaeology of Jerusalem. You appear to expect to find cigarette lighters with "Made in the United Monarchy" stamped on them, so when the evidence turns out to be less, you dismiss the Kingdom of David as a purely literary and mythical phenomenon. The Egyptians left us vast structures, the Hebrews left us a rich literature. Both bear witness to their respective peoples. As for structures, I think features such as the Stepped Stone Structure and the nearby remains of houses on the Ophel ridge indicate that there was a settlement we know as Jerusalem in the 10th century BC. The remains do not indicate a massive city, but it does not need to be! For a primitive band of sheep and goat herders, recently starting the practice of agriculture, the change from a rough pastoral lifestyle to an embryonic urban one would have been huge! So huge, in fact that for them that it would have commanded description in the most grandiose terms. According to Scripture, Solomon bragged that he received 666 talents per year. For a primitive kingdom like Judah, this was a huge sum. But it was meager if we compare it to the wealth of Egypt or Babylon. Later, wealthier, urban writers had received traditional knowledge of the "golden age". They probably were a good deal wealthier than in the 10th century BC, but they had always remembered the time of David and Solomon as a golden age and that is how the story got set to paper.
Besides, the fledgling kingdom of Judah (if it existed at all) was hardly in a position to field 1000?, 500?, even 250 chariots against the king of Damascus.
I recommend you read former Israeli President Chaim Herzog's excellent "Battles of the Bible". The Jews did not often use chariots, relying rather on deceit, indirection and a mountainous terrain that rendered chariots useless against foot soldiers. It was seldom easy for an invading force to take and hold the Judean highlands. Highlanders the world over agree.
I only wish I had access to this entire article .
And this article from 2005 places the hebrew inscription in the 10th century BC.
David, Saul and Solomon may be purely mythical: dvd means 'beloved', s`vl means 'underworld' and the name Solomon is cognate with Canaanitic Shalim, god of sunset: the ancient world was replete with stories about gods dying, descending into the underworld and then being rescued by their beloved.
I think the evidence of that is far, far more tenuous than the evidence for the persons of David and Solomon ruling in Jerusalem in the 10th century BC. You remove what you consider a weak theory based on ancient mythology and replace it with an explanation as substantial thin air.
Sincerely,
Burn
BurnTheShips

Here is some more recent evidence to consider:
Nature Magazine Vol 447 3 May 2007:
.....Few dispute that this complex site has yielded some major discoveries in recent years. Near the top of the hill in Silwan is an ongoing excavation led by Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew
University and sponsored by Elad, the Shalem Center (a Jerusalem-based research institute), the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Society for the Study of the Land of Israel and Its
Antiquities. In early 2005, Mazar’s team uncovered a large stone structure, and dated pottery found inside the structure to early in the Iron Age IIa period (around 1000 bc), which corresponds to the time of King David. So far, several large rooms have been uncovered, as well as walls two to three metres wide. In March, Mazar announced the discovery of another 20-metre section of the structure’s outer wall, further evidence of its huge size. She believes that the massive nature of the structure indicates that it must have been an important public building. And because it is located close to the Temple Mount and at a commanding position in the city, she believes that it is the palace that, according to the Bible, David built after conquering Jerusalem and making it his capital in the early tenth century bc1.......Reich and Shukron’s work on the spring allowed them to work out that a tunnel dug by King Hezekiah in the eighth century bc to bring the water safely into the ancient city was used in a different way from that previously supposed by archaeologists. In addition, they uncovered a pair of massive towers dating from the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries bc — demonstrating that the city was large and wealthy at that time........
Burn
Brother Apostate

I'm kind of late getting to this thread, having caught up on it so far, I've noticed Dansk trying to imply that Solomon, David, etc did not exist. In another thread, Dansk asked wheter I'd read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman, presumably because that is where he gets his ideas from. I'll start by reposting that in it's entirety:
B.A.
I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.-BA
Have you ever read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman? These are two eminent archaeologists who have, in my opinion, done a great job in sifting fable from fact in the Hebrew scriptures. As far as I know, their findings have never been disproved with any worthwhile contrary evidence. The book certainly puts the scriptures in a whole new light and clearly shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts.
I'd just be interested to know your thoughts on the book.
Sincerely,
Ian
Yes, I have read The Bible Unearthed. There are always at least two sides to every story, so for a balanced view of their claims, I also read differing archaeologist's and apologetic replies to the points Finkelstein and Silberman make. Have you?
Their findings (opinions) can't be disproved, because they are opinions. However, there are numerous rebuttals to their opinions on apologetic websites, as well as differing interpretations by other prominent archaeologists (Cathey, Deven, Dothan, Ussishkin, Herzog, Ben-Tor, Mazar, etc) all over the internet. Archaeological evidence is interpreted by both minimalists and maximilists. If you don't read both sides, you come away with a skewed viewpoint. The book does provide a different perspective on the scriptures, but as far as the conclusions reached, these have been rebutted, and continue to be rebutted.
Finkelstein and Silberman's opinions shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts? They are their opinions, with many dissenting viewpoints on how archaological evidence is best interpreted.
In other words, you'll find among archaeologists a contuum of belief from minimalist to maximilist, and all points in between. There is black and white, and there are shades of grey all along the continuum of these extremes.I am absolutely convinced that most who left the jws never get this point. You must learn at some point in your life that what you readily accept as "fact" is in reality nothing more than an interpretation, an opinion, and these always change with time. Finkelstein and Silberman have crossed the line in their book numerous times where they state as fact what is only opinion, and they have many, or even most, who currently (or will in time) disagree with their "findings".
Here is a sampling of viewpoints on Finkelstein and Silberman :
Quote: "As a working archaeologist ... I can attest that Finklestein et al. have based their conclusions upon "selected" data. You can’t hold "one" archaeologist [Finkelstein] up as the paragon of the field and expect the scholars to bow to him. I would direct your readers to Mazar’s recent articles (over fifteen) that dispute the findings in this work. Likewise I would also direct your readers to articles and monographs by Ben-Tor, and even Dothan and Dever. They all will agree on one thing - the data does not support a lowering of the chronology nor the dates he adduces". -Joe Cathey
Quote: "I was one of the student volunteer diggers for Yadin on the 1971 excavation that found the Solomonic Gate at Gezer. Four of us Dug like crazy for four weeks just shoveling dirt as fast as we could to get down to the Gate. Trust me no one dug it up and rolled rocks down the hill before we got there as some have suggested. We had to dig down though twenty feet of dirt, often having to USE A PICK AXE TO LOOSEN THE ROCKS AND SOIL just to get to it. In the adjoining area burned debris was present above the floor. Assuming this was Shishak's destruction of 930 BC then that pretty much clinches the story, without even getting into the casemate wall issue or the pottery...Finkelstein's argument however, is absurd. You have three identical Heavy Gates all below the Shishak destruction. Call him Solomon or Call him Jerry, the same leader was obviously responsible and the timing is right, so objectively speaking.... whats the problem? ...
The instant attraction of the minimalist argument/low chronology has less to do with archaeology than with theology and politics I suspect. ...But to let that blind you to the wonders of the text is to poke your own eye out because what you see offends you. The Gates are Solomonic and there is more to the mystery than most are comfortable with. It is the fear of the very real mystery of God which foments fundamentalism, and blinds the minds eye. Don't let fundamentalism blind your objectivity toward science nor toward God." - Daniel Pride www.kingsolomonsgate.com
Quote: "Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, "there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier" ("Animal Kingdom," 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed "anachronism" of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the "silence" of archaeology…which is silent no more!" -Eric Lyons- http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1781
more:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bibleunrvw2.html
BA- In short, my take is- Some people can't get enough of revisionism ad nauseum.
PS- It seems these days it's ok to be a skeptic of the Bible, but not ok to be a skeptic of what it's detractors write.
BurnTheShips

FANTASTIC!
Biblical Archeology Review January/February 2006 (PDF warning)
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/Mazar.pdf
There is far far more evidence than I had imagined Dansk.
Please take a look if you have a chance.
Burn.
BurnTheShips

BA,
Finkelstein and Silberman's good work has figured rather prominently in the debate, but Eilat Mazar's recent excavations in Silwan tend to undermine a lot of their argument. Thankfully, science, and the scientific mind, are always ready to revise their theories in the light of new evidence!
Check out the last couple of posts above.
Burn

What if God IS a farce?

Share this