Biblical City of David found?

[Debi]

Ancient lost city of King David is uncovered near Jerusalem and expert says it proves the Bible is accurate

Historians believe they have uncovered a building belonging to the settlement linked to the Biblical king

A LOST city that appeared in the Bible has been found near Jerusalem, experts say.

Historians believe they have uncovered a building belonging to the ancient settlement, which is linked to King David.



Archaeologists are divided over whether or not Biblical figures such as King David and King Solomon ever existed.

Professor Avraham Faust, co-head of the archaeological dig, said the latest find backs the case for the historical accuracy of the Bible.

He says the latest discovery is “part of the events in the Bible ascribed to the Kingdom of David”.

Biblical references claim King David is an ancestor of Jesus and would have existed around 1,000BC.



And radiocarbon dating confirmed the city came from around the same time.

According to Breaking Israel News, archaeologists were aided by burrowing mole rats, who bring earth to the surface - which gives them a clue as to what is hiding below.

Professor Faust and Yair Sapir, of Bar-Ilan University, believes the building could be part of the city of Eglon.

The city is mentioned in the Bible as one of the five which fought against the Israelites before being conquered.

But historians question the use of the Bible as a historical reference because most events mentioned in the text lack historical evidence.

Full story and pics at site

 

[Benway]

Archaeologists are divided over whether or not Biblical figures such as King David and King Solomon ever existed.

It's not much of a divide. Mainstream archeologists say the evidence say that there is no evidence supporting it and that there weren't lots of Israelite slaves in Egypt at any point and that Jericho was destroyed by Egypt.
From the full article:

Dr Faust told Breaking Israel News: "We, of course, did not find any artefacts that said ‘King David’ or ‘King Solomon’ but we discovered site signs of a social transformation in the region which are consistent with a change from Canaanite culture to a Judean culture.

“Since it took place at a time we believed the Kingdom of David began to spread into this region, it is clear this building was part of the events in the Bible ascribed to the Kingdom of David.”

(Dr. Faust is quite an unfortunate name.) So, in other words they found an old town with no evidence whatsoever of anything to do with the Bible and then concluded that "it is clear this building was part of the events in the Bible ascribed to the Kingdom of David.” because there may have been a social change there? Huh.

Sadly, this sounds about right for the religiously dominated faux archeology that dominates the region. I know that sounds harsh but the field is dominated by people who are searching for proof that the events in the Bible were real and they cause real damage to sites that unbiased archeologists should be studying. I wish they could be kicked out and replaced to stop the loss of any more genuine history.

People should be free to believe what they do, but the state of archaeology in that region dismays me. Cooking evidence to lead people to believe proof exists when there is none (and the local tourist trade does well out of this) cheapens the beliefs of others as well as damaging our understanding of history. If I were Christian I would object even more strongly to the lies being told in this field. People should not be conned into paying cash to go on a pilgrimage to a random old village because dishonest people are saying it's a Biblical site and people who are interested in the real old village shouldn't have the facts thrown away.

Sorry for the rant, but I've been reading a lot about this sort of thing and it's no more than a modern version of when the medieval church sold nails from the 'true cross' to believers in my opinion.

 

[Lynne]

I didn’t see that they said they had proof just that it would be a possibility. Did you see where they were faking evidence? I may have missed it.

 

[Benway]

I didn’t see that they said they had proof just that it would be a possibility. Did you see where they were faking evidence? I may have missed it.

It's more a case of taking very slim evidence and then declaring an explanation "true beyond reasonable doubt" despite others having plenty of doubt. Then it ends up being accepted as fact and anybody disagreeing is dismissed as a crank. It's less making up lies and more really extreme bias.

For instance:
“Since it took place at a time we believed the Kingdom of David began to spread into this region, it is clear this building was part of the events in the Bible ascribed to the Kingdom of David.”
Many archeologists and historians do not believe there was a Kingdom of David as it was recorded and certainly have no firm idea on the times when things happened, so this blanket statement is highly misleading. Also, if there was a Kingdom of David as described in scripture there is still no link between "this happened in this era" and "it is CLEAR that" and even that statement doesn't say that it is the City of David, only that it is 'clearly' from that time.

It's not making things up, so much as building huge castles on foundations of quicksand. The facts of this story are "old town discovered". Nothing more. The discovery of such an old settlement is important but we aren't going to learn anything with that attitude.

 

[Charleh]

It's more a case of taking very slim evidence and then declaring an explanation "true beyond reasonable doubt" despite others having plenty of doubt. Then it ends up being accepted as fact and anybody disagreeing is dismissed as a crank. It's less making up lies and more really extreme bias.

For instance:
“Since it took place at a time we believed the Kingdom of David began to spread into this region, it is clear this building was part of the events in the Bible ascribed to the Kingdom of David.”
Many archeologists and historians do not believe there was a Kingdom of David as it was recorded and certainly have no firm idea on the times when things happened, so this blanket statement is highly misleading. Also, if there was a Kingdom of David as described in scripture there is still no link between "this happened in this era" and "it is CLEAR that" and even that statement doesn't say that it is the City of David, only that it is 'clearly' from that time.

It's not making things up, so much as building huge castles on foundations of quicksand. The facts of this story are "old town discovered". Nothing more. The discovery of such an old settlement is important but we aren't going to learn anything with that attitude.

The same can be said about King Solomon. Not much evidence of his kingdom since the bible said it was more or less ruins after his death, and some historians doubt Solomon was a real man.

 

[Armand]

According to what I have read in the past not only in the bible but Also a book by Anne rice called Christ the king (out of Eygpt ) It was the town of Bethlehem.

"Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem"