Church vs Bible, What to believe?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You have not provided any evidence of the banditry,

Israel Finkelstein's book: "David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition" does a good job of showing that the "bandit chieftain" tales come from the 10th century BC when David actually lived.

It also shows how writers in succeeding centuries then magnified David's power in their own writings about him.

The same book also covers some of the evidence for Saul's kingdom as well.

maxdancona wrote:

or the war of succession

I am not aware of any war of succession.

???

maxdancona wrote:

or the existance of giants, or of men with the supernatural power to control the weather.

It is not my intention to address such things.

maxdancona wrote:

It is quite possible that there was a King Author.

Probably Charlemagne. He actually did carve a civilization out of the dark ages, and did so using mounted knights.

There is also a possibility though that the legends originated with a military officer who won a great battle against invading Germanic tribes after the Romans abandoned London.

maxdancona wrote:

Your faith is strong, Oralloy.

I find it quite easy to believe in science.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I think you are playing the "argument by Google game". You have a preconvieved notion and are then searching for "facts" that support your beliefs and ignoring any that don't.

Finklestein is on my side, not yours. He pisses off people who believe that the Bible is an accurate historical record.

A big part of the Biblical narrative was that David ruled over a United Kingdom. Finklesteins work directly refutes the biblical mythology.. He goes on to point out the political reasons for people centuries later to invent these stories.

Your faith is strong.

2 Replies

If anybody is seriously interested in the historical accuracy of the Bible there is an excellent TV series made by Channel 4 and presented by John Romer.

It’s called Testament and there is an accompanying book of the same name, both are very good.

I believe it’s available on YouTube.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
It is quite possible that there was a King Author.

Probably Charlemagne. He actually did carve a civilization out of the dark ages, and did so using mounted knights.

Although the term "Dark Age" is considered to be misleading and inaccurate, the "Dark Ages" appellation is restricted to the Early Middle Ages. And that would certainly includes all Emperors of the Carolingian dynasty up to the Ottonians.

The Frankish ancestors of Charlemagne already used armoured horsemen in the early Middle Ages and - from the 7th to the 8th century - pushed the borders of their empire as far as northern Spain.

The historical core of the Arthurian story is probably to be found in the Migration Period, when the Romano-British remnant population had to defend itself against invading Angles/Frisians/Jutes/Saxons after the withdrawal of the Roman legions.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I’ve visited Arthur’s grave.

It ain’t free either.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

When I'd been for the very first time in England (in 1963), I'd been to Glastonbury Abbey, too. And saw the Round Table only from the distance a couple of times later.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

For a long time the Round Table was free, now you have to pay.

Tintagel is the most Arthurian of the three.

Arthur is all Tintagel has, while both Winchester and Glastonbury have a **** ton of other stuff.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Last time, the missus and I visited the Old Post Office in Tintagel - the crowds from the coach car park opposite didn't even notice it.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

It’s one of those places with a bakery that claims to have the original Cornish pasty.

To be honest they’re not that good.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I prefer to spread jam first on my scones, followed by cream - although reportedly sciences says, the Devonian way is correct.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That’s the way I do it, after butter of course.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Of course.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you are playing the "argument by Google game". You have a preconvieved notion and are then searching for "facts" that support your beliefs and ignoring any that don't.

No. My methodology is to always side with the truth. The truth may not always be what I'd like, but it is always reality.

I'm surprised that more people don't do this. One side effect of always being right is that I win every argument. It's really quite satisfying.

maxdancona wrote:

Finkelstein is on my side, not yours.

That is incorrect. 99% of what I've said comes directly from Israel Finkelstein's books.

About the only thing that I've said so far that doesn't come directly from his books is the YHW reference from Egypt.

maxdancona wrote:

A big part of the Biblical narrative was that David ruled over a United Kingdom.

I think you mean United Monarchy. Laughing

UK refers to a more modern polity.

maxdancona wrote:

Finkelstein's work directly refutes the biblical mythology..

Parts of it, yes. It also confirms other parts.

maxdancona wrote:

He goes on to point out the political reasons for people centuries later to invent these stories.

As I said.

maxdancona wrote:

Your faith is strong.

It is quite easy to believe in science.

The scientists really do a great job of providing solid evidence to back up their claims.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people—the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were—irony of ironies—themselves originally Canaanites!”

― Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts

I don't know if you actually read this book (as you claim). If you did, you clearly misunderstood it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan--they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people--the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were--irony of ironies--themselves originally Canaanites!"

-- Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Isreal and the Origin of Sacred Texts

As I've said many many times.

It's good that you are finally starting to realize that the historians and archaeologists agree with me.

maxdancona wrote:

I don't know if you actually read this book (as you claim).

I have read a great many of his books.

maxdancona wrote:

If you did, you clearly misunderstood it.

Let's see you point out any errors in my understanding of that book, or of any other book by any author whatsoever.

Note that "running away from a debate in terror" does not count as pointing anything out.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Great, so you agree with me.

The Bible narrative contradicts with the archeological and historical evidence.

I wish you just said that in the first place.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Great, so you agree with me.

Probably not. It seems like still you have a lot to learn about this subject.

maxdancona wrote:

The Bible narrative contradicts with the archeological and historical evidence.

In some places yes. In some places no.

maxdancona wrote:

I wish you just said that in the first place.

I did.

You disregarded what I actually wrote and replied as if I had written something entirely different.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

A big part of the Biblical narrative was that David ruled over a United Kingdom.

There was a united monarchy by the way. It just took place a little later, and under a different king of a different kingdom.

The northern Israelite kingdom under the rule of the Omrides achieved the territory and power that the Bible says David achieved.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are jumping all over the place Oralloy. The Bible mentions the "Omrides" in a very negative light because they didn't follow the Jewish religion.

The Omrides were polytheists. Yes, they had a pretty impressive kingdom. It still doesn't match the Biblical narrative.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I am sticking to facts, history, archaeology, and the writings of Israel Finkelstein. So if you are wondering where I am going, that is my path.

And actually, the extent of Omride power and territory was pretty close to what the Bible claims was the extent of David's power and territory.

That's actually not a coincidence. When the northern Israelite kingdom collapsed, many northerners moved south to Judah. King Hezekiah needed to come up with a new narrative that gave Jerusalem the legitimacy to rule both populations. This is also when their religion became monotheistic in nature.

Then later, when the Neo-Assyrian Empire collapsed, King Josiah wanted to reclaim the former Israelite kingdom to the north under his own rule. And to make that claim, he needed to pretend that his own ancestors had once ruled all the territory that the Omrides once ruled.

Between the rewriting of history by these two kings, we end up with the untrue description of a united monarchy under David that we find within the Bible.

They had the time of Saul's kingdom pushed back a century or so to make space in the narrative for a united monarchy under David and Solomon. They had Pharaoh Shishak/Shoshenq I's invasion rewritten so that he plundered Jerusalem instead of destroying Saul's kingdom. And they had the invasion to destroy Saul's kingdom rewritten so that it was instead Egypt's Philistine allies who toppled the now-much-earlier Saul.

1 Reply

Church vs Bible, What to believe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know