Why not explore beyond the religion you inherited?
Monday, December 11, 2006
Did David Exist?
Did David exist as a powerful king? "Honey" is quite sure that he did, but archeology seems to indicate that, if he did exist, he was a marginal leader of a small tribe, who had little of the glory attributed to him. Click here to read more.
15 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Merle, I am once again impressed by your research and explanation. Thanks for making it clear and each time I read what you wrote, I do not need to have faith 'faith' in order to believe in what you said.
As always, your manipulation of the facts makes my head spin.
But then on the other hand…YAY!
Thank you Finkelstein & Silberman!
Now I can’t say that I have read the books you recommend, but here are a couple of titbits from the book reviews on the page you linked to.
“Although it seems possible that David and Solomon were actual historical characters”
“The authors are careful to note that the absence of contemporary confirmation outside the Bible is no reason to believe that the characters did not actually exist”
Seems you have done my homework for me this time Merle. I’m not sure what you were thinking, but here we have two men that apparently acknowledge that these Biblical characters may have existed (even if the archeological evidence doesn’t yet confirm their reputations to match those lavished upon them by Biblical accounts).
So then…I don’t see the connection you make between these men and my comments as quoted below from a previous post. ________________________ MY QUOTES “Either way it is a preposterous claim that Saul, Jonathon or David were possibly fictitious.”
“Of course as with anything to do with the Bible we can always rely on the Archeological Lunatic Fringe to go to extreme lengths to deny any existence of God or anything that could be associated with Him.” ________________________
Clearly if these archeologists acknowledge the possibility that these men were real then they don’t fit into my ‘deny’ category.
Unfortunately Merle, you didn’t align yourself so closely with the beliefs of these men, as demonstrated by your comment: ________________________ YOUR QUOTE Well, actually, we are talking about what well may be 3 fictional characters. ________________________
So I’m glad we sorted out who I was actually referring to.
Oh wait! Is that a back flip I see you perform? I’m not really sure it is….but ok here is your new quote ________________________ YOUR QUOTE
“And no, I am not going to extremes to deny the existence of David. I have no horse in that race. I agree, after all, that King Josiah existed, and the accounts of his reign are fairly accurate. However, I don't think that Job existed. Where does the story of David fit into that continuum between pure fiction and absolute truth? I think the accounts of his life are largely exaggerated, and may even be entirely fictional." _______________________
You are entitled to your opinion, but it’s a very sharp slight of hand you have there Merle.
Enough with the juggling. Let’s move onto the important facts so that the readers have something to take a firm grasp on, and we will start with:
David’s Palace (Large Stone Structure)
Merle, you question why I turned from Wikipedia to the popular press for this issue, and my answer to you, is that I believed the article I gave the site address for, to be a very worthwhile read since it contained quotes from the archeologist who had found the structure; quotes that had not been included in the Wikipedia article. (as far as I could see). So I was taking the information “from the horses mouth” so to speak. But you would know that from reading the article.
QUESTION: Who discovered David’s Palace (Large Stone Structure)? ANSWER: Eilat Mazar
QUESTION: Who is Eilat Mazar? ANSWER: Eilat Mazar is a third-generation Israeli archaeologist, specializing in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She has worked on the Temple Mount excavations, as well as excavations at Achzib, and is a research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Wikipedia)
Now the next questions is for you Merle
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
This is just an observation, and certainly no offence is intended - I would be in no way offended to receive a response to the comment, but I just wanted to share the observation with the readers.
It does not take any faith to deny a matter; it takes knowledge, ignorance or deception.
It does however take faith to believe that someone who denies a matter, speaks out of knowledge, rather than ignorance or deception.
You are correct, and I quoted him exactly as he had stated. 'Well may be' in the context in which Merle used it represented an inclination towards 'are' or 'were'.
And did I state he HAD done a back flip? Or did I draw attention through my words to a more mid line slide in response to my comments?
I am interested to see that my statements of fact were addressed, and that Merles obvious error in bringing accusation against me with regards to the archeologists, were unnoted.
Ah, Honey, so you like it when I reply? Yes, I intend to respond to this, and to some of your other recent comments, but of course, there are many other demands in my life. This blog is a hobby that I pursue as time permits.
Actually Merle, I don't need a response, although I'm sure you will delight in giving one when you have the time. If your readers are serious about asking questions, they will follow the matter up for themselves with an open heart and mind.
Enjoy your holiday Merle, and I wish you sincerely all the best.
YOU SAID: As I have explained to you several times, science is not based on quoting what an authority says. Rather, science is based on the facts and evidence that are presented to support the claim. The fact that you got information from the mouth of a horse is not as important as the facts of the case.
Thank you for this quote. I will keep this in mind at all times, and perhaps insert it at the top of each new discussion.
I ask the question because this slinging match between the two of us is unproductive. It diverges into endless tangents, and is far from edifying. I would like to deal only in the facts so that your readers are no longer overwhelmed with conjecture.
I ask this specific question to demonstrate to the readers the verifiable fact of how this fantastic archeological find was discovered. It has a great deal of relevance to the specific question being discussed and also pertains to the overall rationale of your site.
So I state again the reworded facts for your readers, and ask again the question.
QUESTION: Who discovered the Large Stone Structure (believed by the discoverer to be David’s Palace)? ANSWER: Eilat Mazar
QUESTION: Who is Eilat Mazar? ANSWER: Eilat Mazar is a third-generation Israeli archaeologist, specializing in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She has worked on the Temple Mount excavations, as well as excavations at Achzib, and is a research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Wikipedia)
Question for Merle
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
You are not my personal research assistant, but if you don't know the answer and are researching the 'did David exist' question then you need to look it up to be fully aware of the facts (rather than the speculation)regarding the matter. That is however not the case, as you do know the answer, so I must ask why you are avoiding a simple truth?
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
I am not avoiding a simple truth. I have heard at least two answers to what caused Mazar to search in that spot, and there may be more. I see no need to research all of Mazar's possible motives and then submit them for you to critique.
Can you pls tell me what is the answer to "QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?" since Merle refuses to answer it? I am curious to know. Thanks. --julnee
I am so sorry Julnee, I am so tired tonight, (1:20am) and not sure when I will get back here, just taking each day as it comes. I haven't the time or the clarity to give you a decent answer tonight but here is a site address that should help you if you are interested.
15 comments:
Merle,
I am once again impressed by your research and explanation. Thanks for making it clear and each time I read what you wrote, I do not need to have faith 'faith' in order to believe in what you said.
--julnee
Merle,
As always, your manipulation of the facts makes my head spin.
But then on the other hand…YAY!
Thank you Finkelstein & Silberman!
Now I can’t say that I have read the books you recommend, but here are a couple of titbits from the book reviews on the page you linked to.
“Although it seems possible that David and Solomon were actual historical characters”
“The authors are careful to note that the absence of contemporary confirmation outside the Bible is no reason to believe that the characters did not actually exist”
Seems you have done my homework for me this time Merle. I’m not sure what you were thinking, but here we have two men that apparently acknowledge that these Biblical characters may have existed (even if the archeological evidence doesn’t yet confirm their reputations to match those lavished upon them by Biblical accounts).
So then…I don’t see the connection you make between these men and my comments as quoted below from a previous post.
________________________
MY QUOTES
“Either way it is a preposterous claim that Saul, Jonathon or David were possibly fictitious.”
“Of course as with anything to do with the Bible we can always rely on the Archeological Lunatic Fringe to go to extreme lengths to deny any existence of God or anything that could be associated with Him.”
________________________
Clearly if these archeologists acknowledge the possibility that these men were real then they don’t fit into my ‘deny’ category.
Unfortunately Merle, you didn’t align yourself so closely with the beliefs of these men, as demonstrated by your comment:
________________________
YOUR QUOTE
Well, actually, we are talking about what well may be 3 fictional characters.
________________________
So I’m glad we sorted out who I was actually referring to.
Oh wait! Is that a back flip I see you perform? I’m not really sure it is….but ok here is your new quote
________________________
YOUR QUOTE
“And no, I am not going to extremes to deny the existence of David. I have no horse in that race. I agree, after all, that King Josiah existed, and the accounts of his reign are fairly accurate. However, I don't think that Job existed. Where does the story of David fit into that continuum between pure fiction and absolute truth? I think the accounts of his life are largely exaggerated, and may even be entirely fictional."
_______________________
You are entitled to your opinion, but it’s a very sharp slight of hand you have there Merle.
Enough with the juggling. Let’s move onto the important facts so that the readers have something to take a firm grasp on, and we will start with:
David’s Palace (Large Stone Structure)
Merle, you question why I turned from Wikipedia to the popular press for this issue, and my answer to you, is that I believed the article I gave the site address for, to be a very worthwhile read since it contained quotes from the archeologist who had found the structure; quotes that had not been included in the Wikipedia article. (as far as I could see). So I was taking the information “from the horses mouth” so to speak. But you would know that from reading the article.
QUESTION: Who discovered David’s Palace (Large Stone Structure)?
ANSWER: Eilat Mazar
QUESTION: Who is Eilat Mazar?
ANSWER: Eilat Mazar is a third-generation Israeli archaeologist, specializing in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She has worked on the Temple Mount excavations, as well as excavations at Achzib, and is a research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Wikipedia)
Now the next questions is for you Merle
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
Honey
This is just an observation, and certainly no offence is intended - I would be in no way offended to receive a response to the comment, but I just wanted to share the observation with the readers.
It does not take any faith to deny a matter; it takes knowledge, ignorance or deception.
It does however take faith to believe that someone who denies a matter, speaks out of knowledge, rather than ignorance or deception.
Honey
Merle said:
Well, actually, we are talking about what well may be 3 fictional characters.
He did not say they are or were.
I don't see any back flipping at all.
You are correct, and I quoted him exactly as he had stated. 'Well may be' in the context in which Merle used it represented an inclination towards 'are' or 'were'.
And did I state he HAD done a back flip? Or did I draw attention through my words to a more mid line slide in response to my comments?
I am interested to see that my statements of fact were addressed, and that Merles obvious error in bringing accusation against me with regards to the archeologists, were unnoted.
If I am wasting my time here I will leave.
Honey
Ah, Honey, so you like it when I reply? Yes, I intend to respond to this, and to some of your other recent comments, but of course, there are many other demands in my life. This blog is a hobby that I pursue as time permits.
Happy Holidays, everybody!
Merle
Actually Merle, I don't need a response, although I'm sure you will delight in giving one when you have the time. If your readers are serious about asking questions, they will follow the matter up for themselves with an open heart and mind.
Enjoy your holiday Merle, and I wish you sincerely all the best.
Honey
"Honey" See Did David Exist
YOU SAID:
As I have explained to you several times, science is not based on quoting what an authority says. Rather, science is based on the facts and evidence that are presented to support the claim. The fact that you got information from the mouth of a horse is not as important as the facts of the case.
Thank you for this quote. I will keep this in mind at all times, and perhaps insert it at the top of each new discussion.
I ask the question because this slinging match between the two of us is unproductive. It diverges into endless tangents, and is far from edifying. I would like to deal only in the facts so that your readers are no longer overwhelmed with conjecture.
I ask this specific question to demonstrate to the readers the verifiable fact of how this fantastic archeological find was discovered. It has a great deal of relevance to the specific question being discussed and also pertains to the overall rationale of your site.
So I state again the reworded facts for your readers, and ask again the question.
QUESTION: Who discovered the Large Stone Structure (believed by the discoverer to be David’s Palace)?
ANSWER: Eilat Mazar
QUESTION: Who is Eilat Mazar?
ANSWER: Eilat Mazar is a third-generation Israeli archaeologist, specializing in Jerusalem and Phoenician archaeology. She has worked on the Temple Mount excavations, as well as excavations at Achzib, and is a research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Wikipedia)
Question for Merle
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
Honey
Honey,
You write:
"QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?"
Am I your personal research assistant? Why are you asking me to research this for you?
Merle
You are not my personal research assistant, but if you don't know the answer and are researching the 'did David exist' question then you need to look it up to be fully aware of the facts (rather than the speculation)regarding the matter. That is however not the case, as you do know the answer, so I must ask why you are avoiding a simple truth?
QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?
Honey
Honey,
I am not avoiding a simple truth. I have heard at least two answers to what caused Mazar to search in that spot, and there may be more. I see no need to research all of Mazar's possible motives and then submit them for you to critique.
If you have a point to make, then please make it.
Merle
Honey,
Can you pls tell me what is the answer to "QUESTION: How did Eilat Mazar decide where she should start to look for David’s Palace?" since Merle refuses to answer it? I am curious to know.
Thanks.
--julnee
I am so sorry Julnee, I am so tired tonight, (1:20am) and not sure when I will get back here, just taking each day as it comes. I haven't the time or the clarity to give you a decent answer tonight but here is a site address that should help you if you are interested.
http://biblicalarchaeology.org/Mazar.pdf
Regards,
Honey
Thanks, Honey.
Post a Comment