Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
SES
The article raises more questions for me than it answers.
Wed Nov 8, 2017 6:31am
108.171.130.166 (XFF: 198.101.7.220)

The articles says that "It [the stone] indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

Then it says that "The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign".

But [from wiki] "King David is described in the Hebrew Bible as the second king of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah."

Aren't those two statements in conflict? If the stone was dated to the period of King David's reign, how does it ALSO indicate "that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE".

Weird.

And also, why is the inscription described as "biblical"? They never say exactly what the inscription SAYS, and just say that "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans" - and "The contents of the text express social sensitivity to the fragile position of weaker members of society. The inscription testifies to the presence of strangers within the Israeli society as far back as this ancient period, and calls to provide support for these strangers. It appeals to care for the widows and orphans and that the king - who at that time had the responsibility of curbing social inequality - be involved. This inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text."

Then how does it make it "biblical"? Because it's "similar" to things that eventually ended up in the Torah?

Click here to receive daily updates


Religion and Ethics BBS