(BCN) "This is the first time that archaeologists uncovered a fortified city in Judah from the time of King David. Even in Jerusalem we do not have a clear fortified city from this period. Thus, various suggestions that completely deny the Biblical tradition regarding King David and argue that he was a mythological figure, or just a leader of a small tribe, are now shown to be wrong." -Professor Yosef Garfinkel
(Jerusalem, Israel)—Professor Yosef Garfinkel, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, has reportedly uncovered "spectacular evidence confirming the reign of King David."
On May 8, Garfinkel announced the discovery of artifacts found 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem in the ruins called Khirbet Qeiyafa, a city in the Kingdom of Judah adjacent to the Valley of Elah. The village is said to have existed for only about 40 years before being completely destroyed. (Israel news photo courtesy of Hebrew U.)According to an Israel National News report, the "absence of cultic images of humans or animals in the shrines provides evidence that the local inhabitants practiced a different [religion] than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines."
It also "indicates the establishment of a state and of urban life in the region in the days of the early kings of Israel."
Said a representative from Hebrew University: "These finds strengthen the historicity of the Biblical tradition and its architectural description of the Palace and Temple of Solomon."
Professor Garfinkel said, "This is the first time that archaeologists uncovered a fortified city in Judah from the time of King David. Even in Jerusalem we do not have a clear fortified city from this period. Thus, various suggestions that completely deny the Biblical tradition regarding King David and argue that he was a mythological figure, or just a leader of a small tribe, are now shown to be wrong."
- For the complete news story, see original source, Israel National News
Tags: Prophecy supported by news, King David's reign confirmed by archaeology, positive Jewish news, positive Christian news, good Christian news
Rick, you truly will latch on to any hint that your delusional beliefs are true, won't you?
ReplyDeleteSee here and here.
The findings may be consistent with King David existing as depicted in the OT, but they also appear to be consistent with King David not existing as depicted in the OT (and, in fact, given the similarities between the shrine being displayed, and the shrines for Asherah in the first link, it appears this likely increases the evidence against King David as biblically depicted).
Of course, you want to have your cake and eat it to, so I'm thinking that whichever way the evidence falls this will be taken as confirming evidence of your hypothesis, completely ignoring probability theory.
This is a blog spam-filter reply,
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of avoiding comment moderating for all comments, and for the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commenter named Havok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, that I ignored or did not adequately address valid critiques of articles, such as, "How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence". However, Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist that I am "lying" about Richard Dawkins. I have clearly described why Dawkins is shown to be cautiously open-minded towards the moral viability of eugenics in an article,"How Richard Dawkins' Evolution Justifies Racism and Genocide" (VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics). If a third person, a civilized person, believes that Havok has offered a valid argument, I would be willing to entertain it. In any event, Havok is a good object lesson. His consistent slander and lies demonstrate that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will continue to deny that it exists.
You know Rick, you're really starting to make yourself look bad.
ReplyDeleteEven if my claims of you not addressing points were unsubstantiated, your behaviour now is simply reinforcing the fact that you do fail to address points. You prefer to behave childish rather than having a discussion about your claims.
And this post is a perfect example - you breathlessly report something. Said something turns out not to support your position. This is pointed out to you. Instead of taking responsibility and admitting to an error, you act like a petulant child.
Maybe one day you'll be mature enough to have an honest discussion Rick, but I suspect that day is aong way off.
I'm starting to wonder what would happen if I copy pasted Havok's reply verbatim... Would you ignore it anyway, Mr. Warden? As it stands, I happen to agree with Havok - this discovery hardly seems to support your thesis, Mr. Warden.
ReplyDeleteKazette,
DeleteIf you would like to post any point or summary of points, I don't really care where it is from.
I'd like to add though that "id be more likely to address your posting if there was more content that, "see here and here" with some links to other articles. If you just post "see here and here" with some vague and obtuse phrase, I probably won't bother.
without showing any summarized point or idea
Just another indication of your inconsistency Rick. It's fine when you simply cut and paste from an article, displaying no skeptical attitude to the outlandish claims being made.
DeleteBut others have to provide detailed (and summarised) arguments to counter your claims.
If you'll notice, however, I did a reason why you are mistaken - the shrine is the same as others found from the same time and region, and therefore indicate that the shrine found does not indicate that people worshipped a single God (especially as the shrines this one is compared with are for Asherah).
Perhaps you should read my comments prior to posting your childish "spam reply filter"? :-)
K:As it stands, I happen to agree with Havok - this discovery hardly seems to support your thesis, Mr. Warden.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it is not exactly Rick s claim. It is just a small story that the media is trying to present as sensation. And Rick just desperately digs up any kind of information, no matter how faulty, that might support his world view.
Anonymous, Rick did give it the sensational headline of "Spectacular evidence confirming the reign of King David" - the headline given to the article he links to is far more circumspect, though no less misleading.
DeleteI wonder if Rick is mature enough to accept the dictates of probability theory on this - since he felt that this constituted evidence for King David, and that therefore this constituted evidence supporting his beliefs.
Since this is not the case, probability theory tells us that this is therefore evidence against his beliefs being true. At best this has no effect on the truth of his beliefs, but given his initial stance, I don't see how he could actually maintain this.
Of course I suspect Rick would see every possible piece of evidence (and it's opposite) as supporting his "God hypothesis", making his belief unfalsifiable and therefore quite impotent and useless :-)