What evidence is there for the historical events of Exodus, David, or Solomon?

[Nicolai]

Frankly the question I want to ask if "How do you deal with there NOT being any evidence for any of that" or "How do you make sense of archaeological evidence directly contradicting the Old Testament (the size of Israel/Jerasulem under David & Solomon for one).".

I cannot stop thinking about this question! Every time I watch any content and they talk about Moses, Solomon, or David all I can think of is that they never existed the way the OT says. If they did why is there zero evidence to support those claims? We have records to support the claims made by the OT after the alleged reign of David but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative. I try to understand this on a spiritual level and not on a literal but I can't stop thinking about it.

Has anyone else struggled with this? Is there evidence I am missing? Is there a way to think about this that doesn't make much of the Pentateuch essentially historical fiction?

 

[jmldn2]

Frankly the question I want to ask if "How do you deal with there NOT being any evidence for any of that" or "How do you make sense of archaeological evidence directly contradicting the Old Testament (the size of Israel/Jerasulem under David & Solomon for one).".

I cannot stop thinking about this question! Every time I watch any content and they talk about Moses, Solomon, or David all I can think of is that they never existed the way the OT says. If they did why is there zero evidence to support those claims? We have records to support the claims made by the OT after the alleged reign of David but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative. I try to understand this on a spiritual level and not on a literal but I can't stop thinking about it.

Has anyone else struggled with this? Is there evidence I am missing? Is there a way to think about this that doesn't make much of the Pentateuch essentially historical fiction?

Everything in God's Word is literal, spiritually inspired, and (most importantly) taken in faith. Our salvation is faith-based. Just because we see only partially now, one day we will see everything. What evidence are you looking for specifically?

 

[trophy33]

...but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative...

As with every legend or even with some cultural myths, they may be some real events or people behind the stories. For example, the tower of Babel or the flood. There was probably some tower in Babel, maybe a ziggurat for astrological ("to the heavens") purposes. It is possible there was some destructive flood in Mesopotamia etc.

However, the stories and details around them may be not historical in the scientific sense, rather theological, cultural - to teach some point etc.

Because the most of the Old Testament was written around or after the 8th century BC, it is logical that the stories about what was long time before it will be more mythological than historically literal.

 

[Nicolai]

As with every legend or even with some cultural myths, they may be some real events or people behind the stories. For example, the tower of Babel or the flood. There was probably some tower in Babel, maybe a ziggurat for astrological ("to the heavens") purposes. It is possible there was some destructive flood in Mesopotamia etc.

However, the stories and details around them may be not historical in the scientific sense, rather theological, cultural - to teach some point etc.

Because the most of the Old Testament was written around or after the 8th century BC, it is logical that the stories about what was long time before it will be more mythological than historically literal.

Thank you, this is also what I think and I would say this makes the most sense in light of the lack of physical evidence. The issue that this view leads to in me is the validity of the rest of the Bible. If the consensus is that Moses, David, Solomon and the events leading up to them are probably myth and DIDNT happen literally, why would it be any different for the New Testament?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Frankly the question I want to ask if "How do you deal with there NOT being any evidence for any of that" or "How do you make sense of archaeological evidence directly contradicting the Old Testament (the size of Israel/Jerasulem under David & Solomon for one).".

I cannot stop thinking about this question! Every time I watch any content and they talk about Moses, Solomon, or David all I can think of is that they never existed the way the OT says. If they did why is there zero evidence to support those claims? We have records to support the claims made by the OT after the alleged reign of David but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative. I try to understand this on a spiritual level and not on a literal but I can't stop thinking about it.

Has anyone else struggled with this? Is there evidence I am missing? Is there a way to think about this that doesn't make much of the Pentateuch essentially historical fiction?

What kind of evidence would you expect to find?

 

[trophy33]

Thank you, this is also what I think and I would say this makes the most sense in light of the lack of physical evidence. The issue that this view leads to in me is the validity of the rest of the Bible. If the consensus is that Moses, David, Solomon and the events leading up to them are probably myth and DIDNT happen literally, why would it be any different for the New Testament?

Moses, David, Solomon probably existed. There were oral traditions or maybe even some pieces of written stories that were used to compose/write down the books or the first versions of the books in the 8th century BC.
But it does not mean that every story about them or even every sentence about them must be historically accurate.

Regarding the New Testament, the written text is much closer to the actual events. It is too close for a myth or for a legend to arise. Therefore I would say it is reasonably accurate. Not perfectly accurate, but accurate enough for Christian faith.

 

[Nicolai]

Thank you, this is also what I think and I would say this makes the most sense in light of the lack of physical evidence. The issue that this view leads to in me is the validity of the rest of the Bible. If the consensus is that Moses, David, Solomon and the events leading up to them are probably myth and DIDNT happen literally, why would

More to the point - if the Moses story is myth then then original covenant with Elohim is also just a story; none of the miracles that are used to justify the covenant actually happened, and the entire foundation of Christianity is completely destroyed right?

I am not opposed to a non-literal view by the way I just have issues with its implications for other beliefs like the resurrection

 

[Nicolai]

Moses, David, Solomon probably existed. There were oral traditions or maybe even some pieces of written stories that were used to compose/write down the books or the first versions of the books in the 8th century BC.
But it does not mean that every story about them or even every sentence about them must be historically accurate.

Regarding the New Testament, the written text is much closer to the actual events. It is too close for a myth or for a legend to arise. Therefore I would say it is reasonably accurate. Not perfectly accurate, but accurate enough for Christian faith.

Do you hold that the miracles performed by Moses and the details of the original covenant actually happened? If so, why - in lite of your view that the stories or cultural myths.

 

[trophy33]

More to the point - if the Moses story is myth then then original covenant with Elohim is also just a story; none of the miracles that are used to justify the covenant actually happened, and the entire foundation of Christianity is completely destroyed right?

No, I do not think so. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the cross and rose again. That we are saved when we believe in Him.
Repentance, new heart, good works, being born again, loving your neighbor etc, nothing changes.

The cultural Jewish context or even things like flood or stories about Lot or Jewish kings etc are not that important for any of that.

 

[Nicolai]

What kind of evidence would you expect to find?

Only the same amount of evidence for other people’s/cultures of that influence in that period. So evidence from other cultures near Israel, Egypt or Mesopotamia for instance. Or writings from that time that support the claims made by the Bible for the 15 - 10th centuries

 

[trophy33]

Do you hold that the miracles performed by Moses and the details of the original covenant actually happened? If so, why - in lite of your view that the stories or cultural myths.

As I said, I think there are real events and real persons that inspired these texts, but I do not think every detail or every story must be literal.

And because there is no way to know which is which, I am kind of agnostic about specifics. But for example Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal history, IMO. Because it would contradict both external and internal evidence.

 

[Nicolai]

As I said, I think there are real events and real persons that inspired these texts, but I do not think every detail or every story must be literal.

And because there is no way to know which is which, I am kind of agnostic about specifics. But for example Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal history, IMO. Because it would contradict both external and internal evidence.

I am going to reply to both of your most recent comments here.
This is a very interesting stance to me. Let me summarize and make sure we are on the same page.
So all of the miracles that Jesus performed in the New Testament did objectively happen and we can trust the the Gospels are true.
The existence of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and everyone else in the bloodline up to the 8th Century, the miracles recorded - the covenant of Abraham that serves as the basis for Jesus's Divinity and role as the Christ, the parting of the Red Sea, all the times God spoke to the prophets and Kings of Israel, all the times God destroyed people for disobeying him, all the tons of times God spoke through dreams to David, prophets, and others, you hold that none of that is relevant to whether or not Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

Do you hold that the God that is Christ manifest is the same God spoken of in the Old Testament? How do you make sense of John 8:58 & Exodus 3:14 if you do not hold that Chris was the manifestation of the God of Israel, Yahweh (Adonai, - El-ohim)
John 8:58: "Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am."
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

If Christ is not the manifestation of the God of the Old Testament who is he? How can he be Chris if the Old Testament is not true? How can one believe in God (Yahweh, who's covenant is spoken of in the Pentateuch) while not believing in the books that speak most directly of his existence?

 

[jmldn2]

If one does not believe in people of the OT, why would they believe in people of the NT???? As a Christian, I believe in the Whole bible. Without faith in the unseen or faith in the Lord God Almighty and His Word, it is impossible to believe period. Evidence, what evidence is there you are looking for? Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the bible? Salvation is based upon the Grace of God and the Belief in His Son. What proof is there that Jesus is not the Savior? What proof is there anyway the Moses, David, etc did not exist??? Once again I ask, what "evidence" would satisfy you as to their existence.

 

[trophy33]

you hold that none of that is relevant to whether or not Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God because He is born of Father. Not because Moses divided the Red Sea, for example. God is not dependent on Hebrew history.

Do you hold that the God that is Christ manifest is the same God spoken of in the Old Testament? How do you make sense of John 8:58 & Exodus 3:14 if you do not hold that Chris was the manifestation of the God of Israel, Yahweh (Adonai, - El-ohim)
John 8:58: "Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am."
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

I am not sure what problem do you see with the verse. Jesus was before Abraham and even before the world, because He is the Son of God.

If Christ is not the manifestation of the God of the Old Testament who is he? How can he be Chris if the Old Testament is not true? How can one believe in God (Yahweh, who's covenant is spoken of in the Pentateuch) while not believing in the books that speak most directly of his existence?

Too many questions without any basis. I am not sure why you switched to full blown "Christ has nothing to do with the Old Testament". We are talking about the fact that not everything in the Old Testament is a literal history. But the Messianic expectations since the 8th century BC are still theologically valid, even if the stories about the beginnings of Israel and of the world were mixed with legends and myths.

Even legends and myths can be authoritative or prophetical. Just not as literal history.

Ask yourself this question:
What would change in the Nicene Creed or regarding good deeds if you had no Bible at all?

 

[Nicolai]

No, I do not think so. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died on the cross and rose again. That we are saved when we believe in Him.
Repentance, new heart, good works, being born again, loving your neighbor etc, nothing changes.

The cultural Jewish context or even things like flood or stories about Lot or Jewish kings etc are not that important for any of that.

I agree. Ultimately the relationship with Chris is the end all be all. What I am not understanding is - how can you hold that the Old T

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God because He is born of Father. Not because Moses divided the Red Sea, for example. God is not dependent on Hebrew history.


I am not sure what problem do you see with the verse. Jesus was before Abraham and even before the world, because He is the Son of God.


Too many questions without any basis. I am not sure why you switched to full blown "Christ has nothing to do with the Old Testament". We are talking about the fact that not everything in the Old Testament is a literal history. But the Messianic expectations since the 8th century BC are still theologically valid, even if the stories about the beginnings of Israel and of the world were mixed with legends and myths.

Even legends and myths can be authoritative or prophetical. Just not as literal history.

Ask yourself this question:
What would change in the Nicene Creed or regarding good deeds if you had no Bible at all?

Thanks for your reply. I think I am going to just finish reading the Bible before continuing this discussion. I have read the New Testament and from Gensis to Song of Songs and maybe all the OT literature is just skewing my perspective. Thanks for the discussions

 

[trophy33]

I agree. Ultimately the relationship with Chris is the end all be all. What I am not understanding is - how can you hold that the Old T

It seems you did not finish your question.

 

[Richard T]

I agree. Ultimately the relationship with Chris is the end all be all. What I am not understanding is - how can you hold that the Old T


Thanks for your reply. I think I am going to just finish reading the Bible before continuing this discussion. I have read the New Testament and from Gensis to Song of Songs and maybe all the OT literature is just skewing my perspective. Thanks for the discussions

I don't think I can add much but I personally can understand your frustrations. One can be torn from just taking something by faith or trying to find out the specifics. Sometimes the Holy Spirit or good commentaries might clear some inconsistencies up. Few of us have time to study enough though to fully understand what is going on. This does not invalidate the word though. For myself, I just move on and try to walk on and be led by God, leaving aside some of the more technical stuff. Still, some of those questions do get answered over time. Thank God for that too.

 

[Yarddog]

Frankly the question I want to ask if "How do you deal with there NOT being any evidence for any of that" or "How do you make sense of archaeological evidence directly contradicting the Old Testament (the size of Israel/Jerasulem under David & Solomon for one).".

I cannot stop thinking about this question! Every time I watch any content and they talk about Moses, Solomon, or David all I can think of is that they never existed the way the OT says. If they did why is there zero evidence to support those claims? We have records to support the claims made by the OT after the alleged reign of David but it would seem that everything written in the OT prior to the 8thish century is just cultural & national narrative. I try to understand this on a spiritual level and not on a literal but I can't stop thinking about it.

Has anyone else struggled with this? Is there evidence I am missing? Is there a way to think about this that doesn't make much of the Pentateuch essentially historical fiction?

There is evidence but it doesn't tie in to where many historians date the Exodus.

I'm one that believes the ages of the genealogy written by in Genesis gives a prophetic clue to certain issues. Such as, if you add up the ages from Adam until the flood, you about 1656 years.

I also feel that Jesus was baptized to fulfill prophecy. The flood is also baptism, when God washed away the sins of the world.

Jesus was baptized around AD 30. If you subtract 1656 from that you about 1625 BCE. Now, guess what the common name of the Pharaohs was in this era? "Moses"

Ahmose I, was the Pharaoh. Ahmose translates into Hebrew as "the brother of Moses". There is also a hieroglyphic in his Temple which depicts chariots and soldiers drowning in a flood.

Josephus also wrote that the Hyksos people, which lived in the Nile delta, were the ancestors of the Jews. They were defeated by Ahmose I and expelled from Egypt sometime between 1650 BCE and 1550 BCE.

 

[Nicolai]

It seems you did not finish your question.

That is true. Let me ask you this - how do
we know what the cause of Sin is?

 

[Nicolai]

There is evidence but it doesn't tie in to where many historians date the Exodus.

I'm one that believes the ages of the genealogy written by in Genesis gives a prophetic clue to certain issues. Such as, if you add up the ages from Adam until the flood, you about 1656 years.

I also feel that Jesus was baptized to fulfill prophecy. The flood is also baptism, when God washed away the sins of the world.

Jesus was baptized around AD 30. If you subtract 1656 from that you about 1625 BCE. Now, guess what the common name of the Pharaohs was in this era? "Moses"

Ahmose I, was the Pharaoh. Ahmose translates into Hebrew as "the brother of Moses". There is also a hieroglyphic in his Temple which depicts chariots and soldiers drowning in a flood.

Josephus also wrote that the Hyksos people, which lived in the Nile delta, were the ancestors of the Jews. They were defeated by Ahmose I and expelled from Egypt sometime between 1650 BCE and 1550 BCE.

Very interesting!