(Ron) Archaeology fails to support Bible (again)

box191@iland.net box191@iland.net
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:14:05 (00897542045, 3.0.5.16.19980611001405.0eaf2928@205.242.230.4) 

At 12:58 AM 6/11/98 -0400, Brian Dean wrote:


>  To rehash Till's argument: King David is a myth because there is no 

>archaeological evidence for him. If archaeological evidence should be 

>found Till will dispute it or dismiss it. Therefore the only evidence 

>one could possibly offer would be to place King David himself before 

>Till. Of course even if that were possible Till would simply convince 

>him that he was only a myth.


It is not a question of whether David is a myth or not.
The fact is that there is no evidence of his existence.

Dick Jones