(Ron) Archaeology fails to support Bible (again)

Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:58:57 -0400 (00897559137, 19980611044526.CCBA15516@briandea) 

RON
In what may be the most important of these discoveries, a team of 
archaeologists uncovered a 9th century B.C. inscription at an ancient 
mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, in 1993. Words carved 
into a chunk of basalt refer to the "House of David" and the "King of 
Israel." It is the first time the Jewish monarch's name has been found 
outside the Bible, and appears to prove he was more than mere legend. 


TILL
Is Ron at all aware that this inscription has been strongly contested by
scholars who contend that those who are finding "house of David" in it are
mistranslating?
This matter was discussed in *Bible Review* about three years ago, and the
article indicated that there is no scholarly consensus about the correct
translation.

Let's suppose, however, that the "maximists," who look for biblical
verification in every archaeological stone unearthed in biblical lands, are
correct and that the inscription does refer to "house of David."  What would
this verify except that someone named David probably lived at one time?  It
would not prove any particular details about his life.  It wouldn't prove,
for example, that a boy named David once killed a giant with his sling.  It
would, in fact, prove not much of anything that the Bible says about David.

There is also another side that Ron should consider.  Even if the correct
translation of the inscription is "house of David," how does he know that
this was not etched by someone who was simply accepting the legend of a 
king who was named David?  If, for example, archaeologists should unearth 
a stone in England that had a fragmented inscription that referred to "King 
Arthur," would this prove that King Arthur was an actual historical character?  
What if a stone was found that had "Little Bo Peep" etched on it?  What 
would that prove?  We have all heard tales of the famous inscription "Kilroy 
was here" that American soldiers scribbled on walls during World War II.  
Does the existence of these inscriptions prove that Kilroy was an actual 
person?


RON
  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.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com