Does anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?

Author: disgusted ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 70
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    1 Kings 10: 14.
    The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the territories.  That is about 30 tons or about 23 metric tons.= $250 million today.
    I'd just like someone to present the evidence from the other societies and peoples attesting to the fact that they paid these tributes to a King Solomon of Israel.
    Can anyone supply this information?


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,797
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @disgusted
    Does Anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?
     It is a fair question. But what also has to be noted here is that Solomon’s wealth,  it is assumed,  came from god after he had asked for knowledge/wisdom and not wealth II Chronicles 1:12.  But as per usual, the bible itself contradicts this. For as it clearly states in the verse you have posted ( one I believe I Had posted on another thread) that these riches didn’t come from god at all:they came from everywhere but god when we read 1 Kings 10:1-15. 

    The bible story has it that the queen of Sheba on hearing of King Solomon’s wisdom and knowledge wanted him to share it with her, she intended to pose him some difficult questions in return for the astronomical price he was charging;


    “And she gave the king 120 talents of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”.(1 Kings 10: 10),- that equates to about 4 1/2 tons or about 4 metric tons.



    I would bet my house that not a single fawning Christian here can tell me what   "knowledge" it was that the Queen of Sheba was willing to pay such a high price for.  


    Back to your question:
     Does Anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?
    It appears historians aren't having any of it.


    "His famous mines didn't exist and he was actually a Egyptian Pharaoh".

    But there again?  talking shit>>


    "MANURE PRESERVED FOR millennia by the arid climate of Israel’s Timna Valley is adding fresh fuel to a long-simmering debate about the biblical king Solomon and the source of his legendary wealth.
    Archaeologists discovered the 3,000-year-old dung in an ancient mining camp atop a sandstone mesa known as Slaves’ Hill. The area is dotted with copper mines and smelting camps—sites where the ore was heated and turned into metal".

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    All that wealth. Surely someone mentioned it.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @disgusted
    There is a problem that not many records rom that time still exist.   The bible is exceptional because it was continually copied, but the oldest complete OT is from the 10th century AD!


  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @keithprosser
    There are plenty of records from that time and exactly ZERO mention a King Solomon.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    i don't think there are 'plenty'.

    but there are good reasons to doubt the bible's account of a Hebrew golden age under David and Solomon apart from an "argument from silence".


     
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @keithprosser

    oldest complete OT is from the 10th century AD!


    In Hebrew, and ancient Hebrew is not the same as the Hebrew in the masoretic texts. The masoretic texts are nearly a thousand years older than...

    The septuigate.  There are also much older copies of the septuigate that have still survived, the oldest copies going back to the 4th century. The septuigate itself being a translation that was made hundreds of years BC.


    The septuigate is written in Greek, of course, but Jews didn't have a problem using it for hundreds of years.







  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Mopac
    The septuigate is written in Greek, of course, but Jews didn't have a problem using it for hundreds of years.
    Quite opposite - a translation to greek was needed because in between the testaments Jews (along with most of the mediterranan region) had come under greek inluence and the Hebrew language had all but died out - the jews of jesus time spoke greek, not hebrew.

    Famously matthew copied isiah 7:14 from the Septuagint rather than translating Isiah's hebrew original thus transforming the mother of jesus from a 'woman' into a 'virgin'.  




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @keithprosser
    That isn't entirely true, the word in question does not simply mean "woman", but a young marriageable woman, which well... would obviously be a virgin.

    A woman who already had children would not be an almah.


    So saying the word simply means "woman" is not really accurate.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    Matthew is written in Greek, it makes sense that it would make use of a widely known Greek translation when quoting Isaiah.

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Mopac
    it's not at all surprising Matthew used the LXX - indeed it is very possible he would have been unable to read the Hebrew original.   The slip from 'woman' to 'virgin' was a translation error by the scholars who wrote the LXX and Matthew may not have been aware it was an error.

    Matthew's contribution was to apply Isaiah's prophesy to Jesus.  in short, in Isaiah 7 Isaiah tells the Hebrew king Ahaz that his enemies will soon be laid waste.   More precisely, that will occur before the son of an unspecified woman is fully weaned.   The point is that the event will be soon - Isaiah is prophesying about the near-future, not 600 years hence.  


    There is nothing in the text to imply that the woman is currently a virgin or that she will remain one!   If that had been Isaiah's intent he could have used 'Bethulah' not 'Almah'.   The use of an impending (normal) birth to imply soonness appears again in Isaiah 8.

    Isiah 8:3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @keithprosser
    The thing that was so startling about Jesus to his disciples is how much of his life and what he did paralleled things that were written in what Christians call the Old Testament.

    Consider the story of Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac. How that relates to Jesus's sacrifice.  Even the events are similar. Isaac riding in.a donkey, carrying wood up the hill, obedient to the end even though Isaac would have easily been able to escape the clutches of a man as old as Abraham.

    Consider the story of Joseph, how he was loved by his father, betrayed by Judah for silver, ended up at the right hand of Pharaoh.

    Consider the many psalms of David that describe the exact situation Jesus finds himself in.


    Really though, you could write a whole book on the parallels and scriptures that unexpectedly found themselves in the life of Jesus, and these things were seen as proofs to the followers of Jesus. There are so many it is really startling. In fact, Jesus' entire life account can even be said to be a parable in itself. Not only did Jesus teach in parables, his life was a parable.

    And sure, if you were to simply adopt an attitude of hard skepticism, you will find none of it convincing. At best, you could simply claim that all the accounts were written as a hodge podge of Old Testament scripture, that the whole thing is just a constructed story. 


    You know, if you want to play the hard skeptic.


    But the apostolic church is still around today, somehow even surviving its first few centuries under persecution.. people even up until contemporary times being tortured to death before they apostate. In the last century, over 20 million martyred, mostly by governments who promoted socialism and saw religion as a great evil on the world perpetuated by the oppressors of the people. The same type of rhetoric you found in those places is used by atheists today, they literally use the same arguments that the soviets used. They orobably got tgem from the same place. When you go to the library or bookstore, nearly every writing on the subject of Christianity is subversive in some way. 

    Why do so many go to the grave, all this over what the skeptic can easily dismiss as silly fables and stories?

    Because the faith teaches people to love The Truth above all else, to be temperate in all things, to esteem others higher than the self, and to love their fellows even unto death. Anyone who wishes to hinder or even eradicate such a faith is being guided by the worst kind of evil.

    Such a pure faith should be encouraged, for the betterment of the entire world.


  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,797
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @keithprosser

    Matthew's contribution was to apply Isaiah's Prophecy to Jesus.  in short, in Isaiah 7 Isaiah tells the Hebrew king Ahaz that his enemies will soon be laid waste.   More precisely, that will occur before the son of an unspecified woman is fully weaned.   The Point is that the event will be soon - Isaiah is prophesying about the near-future,not 600 years hence.   
     

    Mathew it appears though is showing his ignorance,- no surprises there then -. he couldn’t have understood or even noticed that this prophecy of Isaiah’s was intended to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s lifetime and was never intended as prophecy for the coming future savior of the time of Jesus. King Ahaz is troubled concerning two armies from the north;
     
     “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel(God is with us)  <<<, Not Jesus!?? .  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria”.Isaiah 7:14-17.KJV
     
       It is made more than clear here that Isaiah was relaying a message concerning the failed siege of Jerusalem by the two northern Kings armies from the north in 735 B.C. And verse 16 makes it impossible to deny who is going to be defeated, in what time period and the child referred to at Verse 15 and 16 above is not on solid food yet and won’t even know right from wrong!

    Clearly this boy has not reached maturity and further there are two other Old Testament passages that we will find in 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9 that will indeed confirm that this prophecy was fulfilled 800 years before the birth of Jesus. If the scriptures are to be believed.

    “In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah”. 2 Kings 15:29-30.KJV

    “And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin”. 2 Kings 16:9 KJV.



    We simply have to ask; what good would this prophecy have been to King Ahaz had it really been about the birth of Jesus, and what good would it have done him in his hour of need?
     The belief by Christians that this was a "prophecy" alluding to the birth of Jesus is quite frankly a big pile of steaming BS

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,633
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @keithprosser
    There is nothing in the text to imply that the woman is currently a virgin or that she will remain one!  
    Here you are doing what you condemn in other atheists. Non-virgin unmarried women of that age at that time were virtually non-existent. You are judging what was normal at that time, based on what is normal now.

    Of course Mary was a virgin. The author would not have seen any reason the readers would question or doubt it. Take the customs and culture into account when reading the passages.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @ethang5
    So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.

    Why do you and your pathetic godist mates have no argument? No evidence, how sad for you. Run away now.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @ethang5
    Of course Mary was a virgin
    What does that have to do with the OP?
    It's just some of that thang doesn't play obtuse. bwuahahahaa
    His only method is trying desperately trying to evade. LOL
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    I believe Jesus was conceived and born in the usual way, to an ordinary married couple.


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,633
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    I believe the bible's account.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @ethang5
    I believe the bible's account.
    That means you believe lies, one of which is the creation myth, given the evidence of evolution you are completely deluded.

  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,797
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @keithprosser
    I believe Jesus was conceived and born in the usual way, to an ordinary married couple.

    "ordinary" to you maybe. But his pedigree shows him to be of Royalty via David and of the family of the Aaronite/Levite priesthood making him High Priest and King with dual authority: a position I believe he didn't want.


    So this would make him and his "ordinary married couple" parents,  a little more than "ordinary".
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Stephen
    I take the pedigrees with a large pinch of salt.  Are they in the gospels because they are true or were they made up to legitimate Jesus' credentials?
    Impossble to say, but if pushed I'd say it was probably the latter - I doubt the hebrew kept reliable, meticulous birth records for the general population over hundreds of years.