posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
so many people want to discount the historicity of the Bible and the Israelites, the best way to destroy a person or culture is to claim they never
Why is it we love archeological finds as long as they are not anything found in the Biblical accounts?
The problem I have with that is that the pottery is attributed to a time frame that encompasses the era in which we currently believe David and
Solomon existed. That part I take no issue with. However after reading the Article linked in the OP the pottery doesn't link itself to either David
or Solomon and the archaeologists reviewing the evidence seem to think the inscription is the name of the person to whom the pottery originally
belonged to. I don't think most archaeologists dispute the historical existence of David or Solomon. In fact recent finds in Jerusalem would seem
to corroborate the historical David. None of that however lends credence to the historical accuracy of the bible. I don't think that my line of
thought makes this find any less remarkable though. Finding inscriptions of archaic Hebrew circa 1000 bce is amazing in and of itself. And the
implications of it are going to be far reaching. If the Israelites were recording history in real time as opposed to oral tradition, to me its an
amazing new insight into a period of history that is not well known as yet. However none of this actually lends credence to the Old Testament as a
historically accurate source. It instead corroborates that there are historically accurate aspects that can be verified Independantly. It doesn't
lend any proof or credence to the "supernatural" aspects of the OT let alone prove the accuracy of the OT as a written historical record. I take it
as allegory intertwined with fact. Just my own Interpretization.