Exactly.GenesForLife wrote:Well, does the finding of troy then also validate Greek mythology? or does the finding of Dwaraka also make Hindu mythology true?Gawdzilla wrote:Did the wall have a signature on it? Who built it, when, and why? Or is it just something they found in the "right place" and decided all that because "it fits"?
There's nothing inherently outrageous in the suggestion that the Biblical characters of David and Solomon were based upon real people in a real kingdom, but that doesn't mean that the Bible accounts are true, and there is very little reason for us to stretch our trust of the "historical" accounts any further, and none whatsoever to accept the supernatural and irrational claims.
The bible-writers had no concept of modern historical methods, and had no interest in "dispassionate" history - their accounts were clearly and deliberately self-serving (with numerous claims about Solomon's kingdom being the "biggest and best" in the world that are clearly at odds with the archaeological record).
We also know, with reasonable certainty that some of the specific historical claims are untrue, such as the invasion of Canaan, undercut by the fact that the cities supposedly overrun by the invading Israelites were already in ruins long before the Israelite culture was established. If I recall correctly, the city of "Ai" actually means "ruin". Similarly, archaeology (and basic understanding of reality) totally undercuts the preceding story of a huge exodus of enslaved Israelites from Egypt.
I'm open to the idea that the bible contains history, of which we can rationally examine the likelihood of specific claims, but the idea that the bible is history is totally risible.
