Atheists must just cringe when these discoveries occur.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...id-at-the-met/

Meet the House of David at the Met
Assyria to Iberia exhibit features Tel Dan Stela and other treasures


Tel Dan Stela. Photo: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem/Israel Antiquities Authority (photograph by Meidad Suchowolski).
An extraordinary inscription from Israel referencing the Davidic dynasty is currently on display in New York. Written only about 150 years after King David would have reigned, the inscription is dated to c. 830 B.C.E. The inscription hails from Tel Dan in northern Israel and commemorates the conquests of Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, enemy of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Hazael claims to have killed both Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziahu, king of “the House of David”—or Judah. That the nation of Judah is referred to as the “House of David” is significant because it is the only archaeological evidence of a historical David—a belief that had been hotly debated prior to this discovery—thus substantiating part of the Biblical narrative.

Through January 4, 2015, this inscription and other treasures from the ancient Near East are on display in the exhibit Assyria to Iberia: at the Dawn of the Classical Age at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Three particularly noteworthy pieces—from a Biblical archaeological perspective—in the exhibit are the Tel Dan Stela (mentioned above), the Sennacherib Prism and the Taanach Cult Stand. Curiously, other reviews of the exhibit have failed to highlight these three significant finds. If you visit the exhibit, do not overlook these pieces, for indeed each has contributed significantly to our understanding of ancient Israel.

No. I dont think they do

You must mistakenly believe that all atheists think that absolutely nothing in the bible could possibly true or bear any relation to real events. How strange. No wonder you're vehement in your arguments, you are badly misinformed.

I'm not misinformed at all, but thanks for trying. I've met plenty of atheists in
various forums that say stupid things like, Jesus (of Nazareth) never existed, or King David never existed - or even just saying the Bible is complete fantasy.

Why do you think Bart Ehrman created such a stir in the atheist community when he asserted that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist, and that there were apostles that claimed to have seem him resurrected?

https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/0...istence-jesus/

You may not cringe at the discoveries, but I'm sure that there are plenty that do.

nice straw man using 20 year old news lol

Straw man? ROFL. Where's the formal argument that this supposed
straw-man applies to?

The inscription may have been found 20 years ago (so what?), but it was
in the news recently.

At least your'e not bitter.... ;-)

You'll be amazed at what this biblical archaeologist did with one simple trick. Atheists hate him!

It’s important to keep the historicity of the bible in the proper context. For some atheists and theists alike, to accept the historical Jesus, or in this case, the historical David, is equivalent to accepting God, and it shouldn’t be.

We could discover the bible is historically accurate, or completely fabricated, and it does not need to reflect on God’s existence one way or another. David’s existence has no necessary bearing on God’s existence, even the Christian God’s existence.

As far as I know, some of the older historical figures in the bible are argued upon by scholars, but they are also accepted by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as accurate, but you can be a Christian and reject these as mere stories, and be an atheist and accept these as historically accurate. There’s no need to presuppose their existence (or lack thereof) based on your beliefs, I think you see far too many people blindly choosing sides based on their meta beliefs.

Most of the cringing happens when chariot wheels get discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea or Noah's Ark gets discovered for the nth time.

I think the pseudo-intellectuals who argue with Ehrman that Jesus wasn't real is the most cringe worthy, considering Ehrman does not accept Jesus as divine, they just couldn't wrap their head around accepting the historical Jesus and rejecting the divinity of Jesus.

What's the deal with the Red Sea discoveries, I have only heard of this in passing, is this an accepted discovery?

Nah, I think most of the cringing, is when fake transitional bones are found in museum exhibits, and no one removes them.

Not really. I think it would go right over, or under, the head of most atheists, as they will not understand what this King David has to do with anything.

In fact I would be surprised if there is even one atheists who has or will cringe over these discoveries. Althogh I suspect most would cringe at your strawman argument.

Damn those fake transitional fossils. You should write to congress or whatever leaders in your country about this issue.

Again, where is the formal argument I made, that the strawman would apply to? Actually, where is the informal argument that I used a strawman?

Or, maybe you guys just make up sh#t to make you feel better?

I'm not sure I follow you, what is cringeworthy?

No, it's a story that seems to pop up from time to time, as does each new ark discovery! I was being a little snide, but was differentiating what you could call secular historical discoveries (which have no supernatural elements), of which there are probably many, versus theologically significant discoveries (by this I mean findings that could correlate with miraculous or otherwise supernatural Biblical events etc), of which there have been found none...and which of these stories anyone should cringe about.

Laymen who argue with biblical scholars that Jesus didn't exist, because they think that his mere existence somehow makes their case for atheism weaker. Ehrman bases his entire profession on the fact that Christ did exist, but that he was not divine, so to argue with him about it for a reason such as that is actually cringe worthy.

There was a thread about this years ago. There was a Christian who posted a bunch of videos, and this was one of them, I wish I could find it. The only thing I remember was neeeel arguing with this guy, but I never looked into the claim, I assumed the premise was true, that there was a discovery made.

Then perhaps you should have said 'some atheists must cringe'. I'm sure that's true, but you won't find any of them posting here. Why not judge atheists by the standard found here rather than the unthinking ones you've encountered elsewhere?

Your argument:

P1) Discoveries are made that support biblical accuracy
P2) (Hidden) Atheists think that nothing biblical is accurate and any discovery that suggests that it is counters their viewpoint.
C) Atheists must cringe when such discoveries are made.

The strawman is that 'atheists' think that anything biblical is inaccurate. Since I'm an atheist, and I don't think that, I prove you wrong merely by existing.

LOL, one of the most useless words in human history.

Means exactly the same as e.g. "Game of Thrones"-scholars, only that the GOT-story is way more interesting.

festeringZit,

I don't doubt some of the historically claims and/or history of the bible, places and even events. So if they make some archaeological discovery it may or may not be interesting but this does nothing to say that the message of the bible is true (whatever the purpose of the bible is).

Fair enough. We're probably all guilty to some extent of sweeping generalizations of the other side... Kind of like when I see people lumping me
(and all creationists) into the YEC category.

You probably don't realize how foolish and ignorant you look with this post.

This

You build a picture of an atheist and proceed to make fun of him/her. Despite the fact that hardly any atheists actually fit your picture. Pretty much the definition of a strawman argument.

Most atheists that have read the bible are sophisticated enough to realise that legends have a basis in history. I suspect most atheists have not read the bible – why would they? - and would not have a clue what the David thing has to do with anything.

Maybe there actually are a few atheists who are familiar with the bible and are not thinking particularly clearly, who would react the way you suggest, although I don't think I have met any. Maybe that is just the people I mix with.

Still waiting for evidence of Moses himself parting the red sea.

Give me proof of that and I'll give you all my money.