Im trying so hard to look for evidance for king Solomon or David; please help!

[Chai]

but all google does is give me sites like this,,

KING SOLOMON: FACT OR FICTION
by Sidney Woolf

Whoever wrote the First Book of the Kings and the Second Book of the Chronicles could not foresee the detailed verification potential of modern archaeology.

The city of King Solomon in Jerusalem is thought to be on the slope leading down from what is now the Al Aqsa mosque. Israeli archaeologists have been desperately excavating the site for many decades yet not one iota of evidence of the existence of King Solomon has been found. No mention of his name has been found on any tablet, inscription, tax record or pot decoration.

Anyone who has visited Egypt will have seen widespread evidence of a monarch who reigned three hundred years before Solomon, Pharaoh Rameses II, yet of King Solomon who ruled over a vast empire and army (1 Kings 4, 21-26 and 1 Kings 9, 17-23, 2 Chronicles 9, 25-26) there is no trace. All the vassal peoples who paid taxes to him have left not a single record of account or inscription. Not one of the soldiers of his conquering army left a sword, helmet or shield.

Professor Yadin’s two volume work "The Art Of Warfare In Biblical Lands" (International Publishing Co. Ltd., Jerusalem 1963) has ample illustrated examples of discovered contemporary armour and weapons from other lands, but one looks in vain for a single item from the Solomonic empire.

Search through Israel’s museums and you will find no evidence from the empire although there are ample artefacts marked "Canaan" or "Philistine". It is inconceivable that if Solomon and his empire had existed in reality not a trace of them could be found from all the archaeological "digs" throughout Israel.

Who then created this fiction, when and why? Many Hebrews of the Babylonian captivity, 586 BCE rose to leading positions in Babylon, became established and wealthy. They had no wish to return to the harsh life of a deserted and derelict land. The Hebrew people were facing the greatest threat ever: total annihilation by assimilation, and their land had been entered by armed hostile tribes.

A young guard of "Zionist" activists grew up, just as they did recently in the former Soviet Union. In order to attract people to the idea of returning they had to create a glorious past, military conquests and a rich empire. Hence the symbol of Solomon.

Most of the books of The Tanach, except Nehemiah, were probably written during the same period for the same purpose - becoming the hoax of the millennia.

It is no coincidence that the writers created Abraham as going from Babylon (Ur of the Chaldees) to Canaan, which is precisely the journey they were convincing the Hebrews to undertake.

The Exodus story was to demonstrate that even fleeing from slavery, enduring forty years with their only food being provided by G-d, and facing powerful armies, the Hebrews triumphed and re-established their state.

How much easier their re-establishing would be now!
The problem would have arisen of Babylonian mixed union parents and offspring being ostracized in the return to the state. The story of Ruth and Boaz was inserted to allay such fears.
 
The books of The Tanach could not have been written during the era of the Kings, before the Babylonian captivity, as the invidious comparison of the weak king with the former power of Solomon would have resulted in the execution of the writers. Furthermore, to forecast long before the captivity and the resulting large settlement of Hebrews in Ur, that Abraham, the fictitious founder of the nation, will come from there of all places, would have made the authors remarkable fortune tellers.
 
There are only three possibilities for the writing of the Torah and associated books: 1. They were written by G-d; 2. They were written by humans inspired by G-d; 3. They were written by humans. If they were written or inspired by the omniscient G-d there would be light-years, galaxies, supernovae, black holes, and not the fairy tales in Genesis.
 
The writers created an  omnipotent G-d that demanded subservience but also attended to the wants and emotions of every human being. This is the object of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Such a G-d has been so attractive for thousands of years to humans fearful of a lonely, cold,empty universe.
 
The custom was for small captive nations to be assimilated into the population of the captors and disappear from history, as happened to the Philistines. By writing these books of The Tanach the authors convinced sufficient numbers of the Hebrews to prevent this happening to them. Although intended only for contemporary compatriots these writings by genius Hebrews have inluenced belief for thousands of years after their time. They also preserved an influential Hebrew community in Babylon.
 
There are many human interest, romantic and sexual stories in the books by authors who evidently loved to write. Academic proof and disproof are not possible as there are no extant relevant original documents. The latter may have been deliberately destroyed to increase the G-d belief factor.

[email protected]

http://www.sidneywoolf.com/

All I found was a possibility that a wall was there pretaning to the time of Solomon

Im sure muman can shed some light on this

[muman613]

Hi,

I hope I can provide some information to satisfy you. I will try to find more and post it soon...

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html

[syyuge]

The above information should be positive enough and encouraging.

[Zelhar]

Both the Tel-Dan Stele and Mesha Stele mention the house of David or David.

[Chai]

encouraging.

[muman613]

encouraging.

I apologize that I have not posted more that I have discovered concerning this. I am busy at work now and hope to post some more here when I get home tonight. I have found other sites with more information concerning the archeological evidence which we have at this time..

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

National Geographic had a recent article (a few months back) including front page feature that went into detail a bit about the controversy in the field of archaeology over this subject and showed pretty conclusively that more recent findings have disproven the theories of minimalists like finklestein.  They even quote him in the article trying to defend his hypothesis in the face of contradicting recent findings and he sounds like a dogmatic fool squirming about like a worm to fit his religion (bible-denial) into the facts.

[Chai]

I apologize that I have not posted more that I have discovered concerning this. I am busy at work now and hope to post some more here when I get home tonight. I have found other sites with more information concerning the archeological evidence which we have at this time..

I look forward to it

[muman613]

Shalom,

Here are some sites which I have found which discuss the Tanakh in light of archaeological evidence. It is not specific to David or Solomon, but it is good at explaining how the Torah jibes with scientific discoveries..


http://ohr.edu/2053

The Torah contains a vast amount of historical material. Evidence that the Torah is true must also apply to this material. Since questions have been raised about the factual accuracy of the Bible as an account of ancient history, we ought to discuss that for a bit.

The Bible talks about the lives of the Patriarchs, wars, migrations, famines, marriages, and all kinds of other events in ancient history. How reliable is that record? Here is a popular way to investigate the reliability of the Bible. The Bible is what is in question and therefore we should not assume that it is true. Now, if we can find other ancient records, for example, ancient hieroglyphics, Syrian records, or Babylonian records, then we could check the Bible against them. If the Bible agrees with them, that is indication and evidence that the Bible is correct. If the Bible disagrees with them, then that shows that the Bible is incorrect. That is an objective, neutral way of assessing whether the Bible's account of history is correct or incorrect.

Does that strike you as fair? I should hope not because it isn't fair. The mere fact that the Bible would contradict other ancient records doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. Maybe the other records are wrong! A mere contradiction only shows that somebody is wrong. Why assume that the Bible is wrong? That would just be a hidden prejudice against the Bible. When there is a contradiction between the Bible and other ancient sources, then the question has to be raised: How can we best understand the nature of the contradiction, and which source do we rely upon?
.
.

http://www.aish.com/h/9av/ht/48961251.html

The world of archeology is rocked by evidence of King David's palace unearthed in Jerusalem.

How Jewish is Jerusalem?

You might think that's a silly question, but in the world of academia, revisionist history and even biblical archaeology, scholars have cast the shadow of doubt over Judaism's intrinsic connection to Jerusalem. The Moslem Waqf, the religious authority that administers the Temple Mount -- the site of Judaism's First and Second Temples -- has been claiming for years that there was never a temple there. But the idea that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and Jerusalem its holy capital has been under attack from far more reputable sources in recent decades as well.

For a growing number of academics and intellectuals, King David and his united kingdom of Judah and Israel, which has served for 3,000 years as an integral symbol of the Jewish nation, is simply a piece of fiction. The biblical account of history has been dismissed as unreliable by a cadre of scholars, some of whom have an overtly political agenda, arguing that the traditional account was resurrected by the Zionists to justify dispossessing Palestinian Arabs. The most outspoken of these is Keith Whitelam of the Copenhagen School which promotes an agenda of "biblical minimalism," whose best-known work is The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History.

    Finkelstein claims that the myth of King David was the creation of a cult of priests trying to create for themselves a glorious history.

Even in Israel, this new school has found its voice. Israel Finkelstein, chairman of Tel Aviv University's Department of Archaeology, began championing a theory several years ago that the biblical accounts of Jerusalem as the seat of a powerful, unified monarchy under the rule of David and Solomon are essentially false. The scientific methods for his assumptions, called a "lower dating" which essentially pushes archaeological evidence into a later century and thus erases all evidence of a Davidic monarchy, were laughed off by traditional archaeologists. But his book, The Bible Unearthed, wound up on the New York Times' best-seller list and he became the darling of a sympathetic media. He concluded that David and Solomon, if they existed at all, were merely "hill-country chieftains" and Jerusalem a poor, small tribal village. He claims that the myth of King David was the creation of a cult of priests trying to create for themselves a glorious history.
.
.

http://www.templeinstitute.org/archaeological_finds-1.htm

"During the first days of the project, a coin was recovered from the time of the Great Revolt against the Romans, preceding the destruction of the Second Temple. It bore the Hebrew phrase L'Herut Tzion, "'For the Freedom of Zion'." Click to read the original article.

http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/25126/

Misconception: King David is buried on Mount Zion, in a room that bears the inscription “King David’s Tomb.” Mount Zion is located just outside and to the south of the Armenian Quarter and Zion Gate of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Fact: Evidence indicates that the area known today as Mount Zion was not part of inhabited Jerusalem in King David’s time (tenth century BCE) and that he was not buried there. Rather, King David was buried in the southeastern area of Jerusalem’s real Old City, which is located to the south of the Temple Mount and Dung Gate and is known today as Ir David—the City of David.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48969466.html

The Seal of Baruch ben Neriah

How lonely sits the city that was once full of people! She has become like a widow! She, that was great among the nations and a princess among the provinces, has become a tributary. Lamentations 1:1

Those melancholy words of the prophet Jeremiah were composed from the dismal confines of a dungeon cell. The prophet of God dictated the words of doom while his protege, the scribe Baruch ben Neriah, carefully recorded them on a scroll. Baruch read the words of Lamentations before the king of Judah, Jehoakim. The thought of losing his kingdom so angered the king that he cut the scroll into pieces and threw the scraps into a fire as though that would alter the divine decree.
.
.
.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48938472.html

[Ithaca-37]

National Geographic had a cover story recently about the infighting within archaeology in Israel, with a particular focus on King David and King Solomon.  In fact, the magazine cover was a print of some painting of King David from the middle-ages.  National Geographic has trended left in recent years;  for instance, they're big-time peddlers on man-made global warming.  Even at that, the piece to which I'm referring more or less admits that there were two men of reknown in or around Jerusalem named David and Solomon, whereas the debate involves whether they were kings leading a major kingdom vs just a couple war-lords lording over some backwater.  To their credit, National Geographic even acknowledged that the academic debate has been contaminated by the politics of Israel vs the Palestinians.  Allow me to suggest that they admit the same about global warming.

37

[Rubystars]

Archaeologists used to say the Hittites didn't exist either and used that to 'disprove' the Bible, but evidence for them was found.

[syyuge]

There must be some jokers in the world of archeology, otherwise how the AIT could survive through nearly a century without providing a single simple archeological evidence.

Similarly for disapproval of the Bible these joker archeologists can speak any of their evidence as proof and any of the others evidences as false. I have seen that if someone is ready to study critically in details, then most of the evidences forwarded by the conventional joker archeologists actually turn out to be finally contradicting their own theories.

This is based around the theoretical assumption that the EuroCommunists build up their theories only around the falsehood, because the truth is always evident and may never need any crutches of theoretical supports.

[Chai]

Shalom,

Here are some sites which I have found which discuss the Tanakh in light of archaeological evidence. It is not specific to David or Solomon, but it is good at explaining how the Torah jibes with scientific discoveries..


http://ohr.edu/2053
http://www.aish.com/h/9av/ht/48961251.html

http://www.templeinstitute.org/archaeological_finds-1.htm
http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/25126/
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48969466.html
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48938472.html

Why is it the Pharaohs do not line up with the torahs account of their dynasty, why would they "Mitzrim" change it ? "

2. Why do conservative and reform Jews claim that the book of ruth is contradictory I read it on wikipedia ;its hard to find a rebuttal online.

WIKI states;
 "The book does not identify its author. Traditionally ascribed to the prophet Samuel, it is now regarded as a novella of probable Hellenistic-era date"

[muman613]

Why is it the Pharaohs do not line up with the torahs account of their dynasty, why would they "Mitzrim" change it ? "

2. Why do conservative and reform Jews claim that the book of ruth is contradictory I read it on wikipedia ;its hard to find a rebuttal online.

WIKI states;
 "The book does not identify its author. Traditionally ascribed to the prophet Samuel, it is now regarded as a novella of probable Hellenistic-era date"

I think some of those are 'loaded' questions.

First of all the fact that Ruth does not have an ascribed author doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be relied on. Our Oral Tradition, according to Talmud Masechat Bava Batra 14b, ascribes the book of Ruth to the Prophet Samuel.

The logic of your argument is because it doesn't have an author written on the page then it must not be written by Samuel is a basic fallacy of logic.

One could also ask who wrote the Book of Job? Only the Oral Tradition tells us that the Book of Job was written by Moses.

Do I have sources outside the Oral Tradition? Not at this time. But the argument you provide is not sufficient to cause me to doubt that Samuel wrote Ruth, and Moses wrote Job.

Regarding the Pharoahs... We do not keep the Torah as a history book. It tells the story of the Jewish exile in Egypt and that is all. The historical events of Egypt provide a backdrop to the story of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisroel. As one of the links I provided discusses how history changes with the whims of the public.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/AID/15559/showrashi/false
8. A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know about Joseph.
9. He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we are.
10. Get ready, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they increase, and a war befall us, and they join our enemies and depart from the land."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

National Geographic had a cover story recently about the infighting within archaeology in Israel, with a particular focus on King David and King Solomon.  In fact, the magazine cover was a print of some painting of King David from the middle-ages.  National Geographic has trended left in recent years;  for instance, they're big-time peddlers on man-made global warming.  Even at that, the piece to which I'm referring more or less admits that there were two men of reknown in or around Jerusalem named David and Solomon, whereas the debate involves whether they were kings leading a major kingdom vs just a couple war-lords lording over some backwater.  To their credit, National Geographic even acknowledged that the academic debate has been contaminated by the politics of Israel vs the Palestinians.  Allow me to suggest that they admit the same about global warming.

37

Oh, I'm sorry, it was national geographic, not Time Magazine, you are correct.  That was the one that I had read.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Why is it the Pharaohs do not line up with the torahs account of their dynasty, why would they "Mitzrim" change it ? "

There are Egyptologists (and some archaeologists, but they have to keep it a secret to remain in their field) who disagree with the standard method of dating as is currently used in archaeology to date the Pharaohs and the Egyptian kingdoms.  (really, all of middle eastern ancient history.  The timeline is simply off).   This standard was actually not the traditional dating system up until either the 1940's or 1960's (I forget now when it was that they changed it), when a group of top archaeologists got together and decided to systematically alter the entire system of dating and which was seen as "authoritative" as it became the unquestioned dogma universally in all of archaeology at their collective word.   However, like I said, there are individual archaeologists who do not agree to it, there are papers already published which question this new system the scholars currently use, and there are egyptologists who openly express disagreement and date the exodus earlier in the Egyptian timeline than what the scholars are looking for.

If you are looking for the wrong date for an exodus, you will obviously never find it.

But there IS evidence attesting to the ten plagues and also the parting of the sea.  These are on murals in an Egyptian cave dated to (I think, but don't remember when they date to) maybe a hundred to two hundred years or so after the event.   But certainly there is evidence, no matter how much people want to deny it.

2. Why do conservative and reform Jews claim that the book of ruth is contradictory I read it on wikipedia ;its hard to find a rebuttal online.  

I have no clue.  Sorry about that.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think some of those are 'loaded' questions.

First of all the fact that Ruth does not have an ascribed author doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be relied on. Our Oral Tradition, according to Talmud Masechat Bava Batra 14b, ascribes the book of Ruth to the Prophet Samuel.

The logic of your argument is because it doesn't have an author written on the page then it must not be written by Samuel is a basic fallacy of logic.

Dude, chill out.  It wasn't "his" argument, he was citing the reform and conservative argument and merely posing a question.  

One could also ask who wrote the Book of Job? Only the Oral Tradition tells us that the Book of Job was written by Moses.  

!!  

It's a machloketh who wrote it, and the Talmud gives several opinions!   And from what I understand, some authorities treat the book as a parable which means it doesn't matter if Iyov was a real person or who he was.

Do I have sources outside the Oral Tradition? Not at this time. But the argument you provide is not sufficient to cause me to doubt that Samuel wrote Ruth, and Moses wrote Job.

He didn't give you an argument, he's not trying to make you doubt, and he was actually asking you what is the reform movement's argument.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Archaeologists used to say the Hittites didn't exist either and used that to 'disprove' the Bible, but evidence for them was found.

True, also the kingdom of Media, or the "Medes."   They also once insisted it never existed.   Why they would be so adamant about that makes little sense unless it's motivated by an agenda to say the Bible is inaccurate.  Because for what reason would the author of the scroll of Esther make up the name of a fake kingdom for no reason when s/he could have just called it Persia alone, and what difference would it make if they hadn't found the evidence yet, just keep looking or not be worried about it - there is no point to making a statement or "campaign" insisting it never existed except to prove their biblical-denial bias.

[Chai]

Dude, chill out.  It wasn't "his" argument, he was citing the reform and conservative argument and merely posing a question.  

!!  

It's a machloketh who wrote it, and the Talmud gives several opinions!   And from what I understand, some authorities treat the book as a parable which means it doesn't matter if Iyov was a real person or who he was.


He didn't give you an argument, he's not trying to make you doubt, and he was actually asking you what is the reform movement's argument.

YEA IT WAS NOT MY VIEW lol why would you even think that muman???

[muman613]

YEA IT WAS NOT MY VIEW lol why would you even think that muman???

I did not think anything about what you believe. I was responding to the question which you asked.

I am sorry if you felt I was saying you believe that, it was not my intention. I was trying to say that the logic of the statement you brought was not consistent just because authorship is unknown...