Really? cause as far as I know and archiologicals know that the Kingdom of David, that you have evidences to this kingdom, ruled for 420 years, that is longer then the Ottoman Empire ruled (the Ottoman Empire ruled for 401 years).
I'm afraid its not as simple /straightforward as that > === "Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on which archaeologist you ask. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text ==== "“This is indisputable proof of the existence of a central authority in Judah during the time of King David,” ISRAELI archaeologists said --- Hmmm..... But .Is it “indisputable”? there has been considerable skepticism about King David and his palace. Critics of the Bible have long doubted the Bible stories of King David. Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book Jesus Never Existed, has written, “Possibly the only element of truth in the biblical story is the episode of David as renegade and outlaw leader, living from theft.” In 1986 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology reported, “The Bible is our only source of information about David. No ancient inscription mentions him. No archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him. The quest for the historical David, therefore, is primarily exegetical.” The new discovery could alter the history books and the proclamation of skeptics. That is, if it’s actually what they say it is. What else could it be? What does this discovery do for Biblical history? It’s not my strong area so I feel very uncomfortable saying anything about it but the certainty that is portrayed in what looks like questionable discoveries make me wonder what it going on here. I may be influenced by too much exposure to Ancient Aliens archaeo-crap. UPDATE: (22-July-2013) It is disputed. Critics said the site could have belonged to other kingdoms of the area. The consensus among most scholars is that no definitive physical proof of the existence of King David has been found. Biblical archaeology itself is contentious. Israelis often use archaeological findings to back up their historic claims to sites that are also claimed by the Palestinians, like the Old City of Jerusalem . In general, researchers are divided over whether biblical stories can be validated by physical remains. As noted in the comments, this has happened before. It has political ramifications. Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University agreed that Khirbet Qeiyafa was an "elaborate" and "well-fortified" 10th century BC site, but said it could have been built by Philistines, Canaanites or other peoples in the area. He said there was no way to verify who built the site without finding a monument detailing the accomplishments of the king who built it. Last week, (22/07/2013) for instance, archaeologists in Israel found pieces of a sphinx bearing the name of the Egyptian pharaoh who reigned when the statue was carved. Meanwhile, the expert will argue among themselves. Is it a find wrongly attributed or is it the evidence many are waiting for? Too soon to tell. Or we many never tell. It may not be possible to verify who built the site. ----
You say here that you dont have any evidence of the existence of the Kingdom of David, but you do have evidences that is not biblical but archiological about Kingdom of David. One of the evidences is the Tel Dan Inscription. Tel Dan Inscription is a mamorial inscription about the Aramic winning against the House of David. Here what the Inscription says: The Aramic king who defeated the Kingdom of David wrote it down his winning, those days when someone like king wrote an events, it means that those events was influential events. not all the events that happened during some king rule, just the most importent events had documentation about it. Nowadays you have consensus about Tel Dan Inscription among scholers about the existence of the Kingdom of David, even Finkelstein himself doesnt say no more that the period of King David wouldnt happen. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...and-the-Kings-of-Aram-and-Israel.aspx#Article http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...rical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/
I know abt Tel Dan inscription - its also in dispute : we discussed it a few months ago : I find interpretation of Tel Dan inscription is still in dispute. See :The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction by George Athas it seems that the main piece of evidence that disqualifies the original reading still goes undiscussed and unaccepted in general scholarship. That piece of evidence is an extra letter on the inscription. ===== The problems of interpreting the Tel Dan inscription were not sufficiently discussed. It would take only a sentence to say that not all scholars agree on the reading of the house of David in that inscription. Even if that reading were correct, it would prove no more about the existence of David than inscriptions (e.g., the Modena inscription) mentioning King Arthur would prove about the existence of Arthur. The Tel Dan Inscription does not date to the time of David, in any case. George Athas says Bayt Dawid should not be understood as a dynastic name ('House of David'), but as another name for Jerusalem, comparable to Yr Dawid (City of David). Athas' book here :http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L...iption&f=false ==== From wiki : "the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed in part because it appears without a word-divider between the two parts. The significance of this fact, if any, is unclear the majority of scholars argue that the author simply thought of "House of David" as a single word but some have argued that "dwd" could be a name for a god ("beloved"), or could mean "uncle" (a word with a rather wider meaning in ancient times than it has today), or that the whole phrase might be a name for Jerusalem (so that the author might be claiming to have killed the son of the king of Jerusalem rather than the son of the king from the "house of David". Other possible meanings have been suggested: it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet.[ Lawrence J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty. But even if (as seems likely) the correct translation is "House of David", Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was a historical figure -- AS you can see the experts are still arguing among themselves ==== Let me know when they are in agreement. + have come to a somewhat similar conclusion. tata....
So you say that Tel Dan Inscription is not enough? ok, here some more evidences: In Khirbet Qeiyafa archiologicals found a remains of a Jewish city that was from David period, how's the archiologicals know? simpe, Yossi Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, professors of Hebrew University, found 16 olive pips that dated, acourding to carbon 14, to the begining of the 10th century, the time when David rule, BUT after some scholers stil was passimist about the true existence of David, Garfinkel and Sa'ar they have more evidences from Khirbet Qeiyafa- 18 Hebrew words on frectures of potbelly, and also in the excevetion Garfinkel and Sa'ar didnt find anywhere bones of animels who are not kosher and not statues of idols, which strengthen the fact that this city was a Jewish city. About the strength of this kingdom you can see acourding to ceramic findings in Egypt and Cyprus, which indicate on a international trade that was in Khirbet Qeiyafa and in the kingdom of David. Acourding to whole of the findings that Garfinkel and Sa'ar found that Khirbet Qeiyafa was one of the provinces in the kingdom of David. More evidence: The mines in Timna that dated from the 14th century BC the new kingdom of Egypt, is wrong and acourding to a new findings (last year 2013) the site dated from the 10th century BC, the time of Kingdom of David and Solomon. The new findings- 10 palm stones, and 1 olive pip. After they send those findings to Oxford University to try and dated them, and after researchers examined the findings to the 10th century, the time of kingdom of David and Solomon- they dated to that period of time acourding to carbon 14. I thought that we agreed that Wikipedia is non-relaible source, so why you try to detarmine history facts from a non-relaible source?
==== The first part of my post was not from Wiki : ":The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction by George Athas it was from " :http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L...iption&f=false I wiki - is as reliable as the quoted references - at the bottom. 8^ Athas 2003, p. 259-308. 9. ^ Hagelia 2005, p. 232-233. 10.^ : a b Mykytiuk 2004, p. 115,117fn.52. 11. ^ Hagelia 2005, p. 233-234. 12.^ a b c Stavrakopoulou 2004, p. 86-87. 13.^ Lemche 1998, p. 43. 14.^ Mykytiuk 2004, p. 125. ====== As I've said " the experts are still arguing among themselves Let me know when they are in agreement. + have come to a somewhat similar conclusion.
Your link doesnt work: And i replaied to what you wrote. you dont want to read so you dont know what i wrote in my comment, read please. Oh so now is a relaible source? give me a break, you said it too that Wikipedia is non-relaible source, be more consistant with what you wrote. If you would read my comment you would see there that all of the archiological evidences was dated acourding to carbon 14, the most accurate method that you have in our world since 1949, when the carbon 14 was first discovered. Oxford University, one of the most prestigious Universities you have nowadays, dated the findings, so I think the documintation of those findings are pretty precise. As I said READ what I wrote to you and then replay.
Just another claim in dispute : "Crying King David: Are the ruins found in Israel really his palace? Not all agree that the ruins found in Khirbet Qeiyafa are of the biblical town Shaarayim, let alone the palace of ancient Israel's most famous king. “There is a certain distance in archaeology between finds and interpretation,” Says Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University. Never was this truer than the case of Khirbet Qeiyafa, one of the most discussed and argued about archaeological finds in Israel today --- extract Prof. Emeritus of Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch, a Ph.D. candidate in Archaeology and Biblical History at Tel Aviv University, it is that the ruins are Canaanite. Finkelstein himself generously suggests that it’s a strong possibility: a very similar layer, with almost exact pottery types and other finds hinting in this direction, was found in the nearby Canaanite dig in Bet Shemesh directed by Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University --. In reality it is quite possible that this particular hilltop site had nothing to do with the Bible at all. So what about the claim that the ruins at Khirbet Qeiyafa are King David’s palace? “This reminds me of the fairy tale of the little girl who cried wolf," says Finkelstein. "Yesterday they found King David's Palace in Jerusalem, today it’s in Qeiyafa, tomorrow they'll find it ... who knows where. Such statements exhaust the public’s attention.” A certain jadedness can be seen in responses to the spate of "King David's Palace found" articles: even believers are starting to question all the finds ostensibly proving the bible's veracity. For his part, Finkelstein questions how scholars, in this day and age, with so many scientific advances in the field, believe in such a literal interpretation of the Bible, an approach that had begun to go out of fashion with the skeptic philosopher Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century. Dabbling in Disneyland archaeology Finkelstein regards himself as an Israeli patriot and feels that it is especially important for Israel, which receives more prestigious scientific grants per capita than most other countries, to exhibit especially rigorous scientific standards in the discipline of archaeology as well. So why have we been hearing such sensationalist claims? Simple. Prof. Jacob L. Wright, a participant in recent discussions on the subject and author of a book on King David scheduled to appear this fall, observes: “The most certain way to create a buzz is to claim that you’ve found something related to the reign of King David." Attempts to link all kinds of finds to King David demonstrate an impoverishment of the historical imagination, as if there weren’t many other kings and warlords in the 10th century B.C.E. highlands, Wright says. “Careful research on both the biblical materials and the archaeological record reveals a much greater diversity of polities, which gradually coalesced into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Khirbet Qeiyafah is an important site, but it is likely part of a smaller local polity,” he says. http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.543216 Stuntman - I'm not as gullible as some. (wink) tata. .
So you Copy-Paste from sites? nice, as i said read what i wrote and then you can replay YOUR opinion about the findings. and here some Copy-Paste for you: If you would read my comment you would see there that all of the archiological evidences was dated acourding to carbon 14, the most accurate method that you have in our world since 1949, when the carbon 14 was first discovered. Oxford University, one of the most prestigious Universities you have nowadays, dated the findings, so I think the documintation of those findings are pretty precise. I dont say you are gulible, I just say you need to read before you replay YOUR opinion. As far as I can see abou your Copy-Paste method is that you really dont have solid opinion about those findings and you just spit some information that you can find to say against those findings, Its just childish and if you continue to Copy-Paste it will not be a dialog. For a dialog you need 2 different opinion from 2 different people, and here in this subject we have just 1 opinion from 1 man.
actually the copy paste tactic is a sure sign of desperation .. it takes from blogs and internet flotsam and acts like it is scientific or scholarly. the internet is a sea of flotsam sounding off with not even their own originality . when challenged they turn to google and come up with drivel the real science and the real knowledge needs to be paid for wikipedia and google is as accurate as one wants it to be.
It works just fine for me . try again : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...gical dispute Tel Dan inscription&f=false
i rest my case … on a side note i wish PF had a ruling towards what people can accuse of , in this case my ZioNazi whatchamacallits.
I'm hypocrite? sorry but when I "Copy-Paste something from sites is to strengthen my opinion and not to leave it to be like "my" opinion.
