I don't think King David was a real person. If you read the Historical book "The Invention of the Jewish People" the author, who is an historian professor presents convincing evidence that neither Abraham or King David were real people. There is little evidence to support that they ever existed.

So you must believe on faith. I don't. I require some convincing evidence.

It is widely believed that although Sand's book may be amusing it
is mostly false.



Here is an excerpt from a Newsweek article which analyzed the
genetics and found the theories of Sand's book on the Invention
of the Jewish People to be false.

=-=-=-=

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/03/the-dna-of-abraham-s-children.html

The DNA analysis undermines the claim that most of today’s Jews, particularly the Ashkenazi, are the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars—which has angered many in the Jewish community as an implicit attack on the Jews’ claim to the land of Israel, since it implies that today’s Jews have no blood ties to the original Jews of the Middle East. Instead, find the scientists, at most there was “limited admixture with local populations, including Khazars and Slavs ... during the 1,000-year (second millennium) history of the European Jews.”

Of the non-Jewish Europeans, northern Italians were most genetically similar to the Jews, followed by the Sardinians and French. The Druze, Bedouins, and Palestinians were closest to the Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Jews. That is evidence of “a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations.” Adds Ostrer, “the study supports the idea of a Jewish people linked by a shared genetic history. Yet the admixture with European people explains why so many European and Syrian Jews have blue eyes and blond hair.”

also an article in the journal Science found Sand to be basically
full of it.

=-=-=-=

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1342

Science 11 June 2010:
Vol. 328 no. 5984 p. 1342
DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5984.1342

News of the Week

Human Genetics
Who Are the Jews? Genetic Studies Spark Identity Debate

Michael Balter

Two new studies conclude that most members of the far-flung Jewish Diaspora can trace their roots to ancestors who lived in the Middle East more than 2000 years ago. The new research, based on recent advances in genome technology, apparently refutes controversial claims that most of today's Jews descend from more recent converts. And it finds that Jews in Ethiopia and India who also claim origins in ancient Israel are more distantly related to other Jewish groups. Yet some researchers argue that although science can track Jewish ancestry, it has little to say about who is a Jew today.

Well, not only that, be even if we just go by the biblical stories this King David was both an adulterer and a murderer. In fact, he murdered the husband of the woman he was lusting after.

So that's the heritage of Jesus?

Doesn't sound very impressive to me. Not only that by why would God favor an adulterer and murderer, or use such a person as an important element of his plan. I could never buy into the idea that God simply couldn't find any better people to work with. That's nonsense.

Why would God make such a person a KING in the first place?

There's no way that I'm going to buy into the idea that God couldn't find better people to make into Kings etc.



I see no reason to believe in this religion on pure faith.

Why would a person even want to believe it on pure faith?

There are far more positive views of spirituality to be had on pure faith.

Why would I want to have faith that I've fallen from grace from my creator and he had to sacrifice his son to pay for my sins and offer me "grace".

Seriously? What would anyone want to believe that on pure faith?

Worse yet why would we want to believe in a creator that would do something we never would? That is to say, making ALL OF US responsible for the sins of two people. Would anyone do that to their own kids? No? Why would God then?

You guys both keep saying what Christianity does and teaches.


Care to show us where you get this info?

If the lineage of Jesus leads to King David, and King David is a fictional character (which I believe he is) then either Jesus is a fictional character or his lineage is being purposely obscured.

I don't mind if Israel's Jews want to claim to be "a people" or a tribe, but when they try to link their lineage to a fictional character of the Bible (King David and Abraham) in order to claim that they are God's chosen people having the right to "the promised land" that is where I beg to differ.

So in my book, of you are not practicing Judaism, you shouldn't call yourself Jewish. It's a religion, not a race.

And any DNA evidence of any kind is pointless if King David and Abraham are fictional characters. That would mean that the stories of God's chosen people escaping Egypt and wandering in the desert for 40 years are all fiction. There is no "promised land."

I basically go by the overall story.

Adam and Eve "Fell from Grace", this placed humans in general in hot water with God.

It had God cursing the woman right in that very story:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Surely you are not going to argue that this was just something that God was cursing Eve with on a personal basis?

This curse and punishment extends to all women. Otherwise what would even be the point of the story?

Moreover, if every human being isn't being "charged" by God as being a sinner, then what's up with the idea that everyone needs to be "saved" by the through Jesus as "The Christ"?

Saved from what?

We are being "saved" from our condemnation of being "sinners against God".

This this is the fundamental basis of Christianity Peter.

That this dire need for repentance out of the religion and you've got a totally different story, and a totally different religion.

~~~~~

On a personal note, I can imagine that you personally may have some alternative views concerning the meanings and demands of these stories. However, if that's the case, I would have to say that you clearly have radically different views from historical orthodox "Christianity".

Christianity is all about SIN, and the DIRE NEED for repentance.

That's what it's about.

As an overall religion, it's really not even interested in anything else.

Try telling almost any Christian that you believe in Christianity but you don't believe that you need to be "saved" from having sinned against God, and they'll immediately begin to explain to you that this isn't how it works.

All men have fallen from grace with God. All men are in dire need of salvation and repentance, and there are NO EXCEPTIONS!

Exceptions will NOT be tolerated!

So to place your faith in this religion is to place your faith in the idea that you are at odds with God and you are in dire need of being "saved" by grace from your sinful ways.

That's what it's all about.

Change that, and you've changed the religion dramatically.

Just try telling Christians that you believe in Jesus but you have no need to be "saved" from anything because you aren't at odds with God.

You won't get very far with that view.

Christianity isn't all about sin. It is about love.

Repentance - refusing to do sinful actions.

When in a relationship, you repent from things you once did when you did not have your spouse. You repent from flirting with others, you repent from hitting on other people, ect. If you originally did/do something that gets on your spouses nerves, you'll repent from doing it to make them happy. That is the same with the relationship with God. God has told us not to do certain things, so in display of love toward our God, we repent from doing as such, just as again you would for your spouse if you truly loved/cared for them.

And no we are not born at odds with God. We are born sinners, yes. But we are only at odds with God when we continue and willingly commit sin without a second thought.

1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel" proving that he was more than just a legend.

Then in 2005 Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar found King David's palace relying on the Bible as one of her many tools. She says, “What is amazing about the Bible is that very often we see that it is very accurate and sometimes amazingly accurate.”

"Proof" does not exist, as you have said many times. More evidence than that is needed... a lot more, for it to be considered "proof."

Things like that can easily be misinterpreted by wishful thinkers.

But please feel free to post links to your sources and I will check them out.

If Eilat Mazar is an Israeli (Jewish) of course it is very advantageous to find proof of King David as the whole story of the Jews rests on King David.

"May have been.." is not "proof."

Wishful thinking is involved here, I'm sure.

http://thischristianjourney.com/ThisChristianJourney/GeneralPages/Historical_king_david.htm

You can not possibly claim that it is not proof. May not be proof to you, but nevertheless it is proof. Evidence, proof, ect are only as evident as the person allows it to be.

Evidence in a crime does not PROVE the criminal did it, only gives weight towards the judges decision.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_interesting_facts_about_King_David

A little about King David, outside the bible.

Born: c. 1040 B.C.
Birthplace: Bethlehem, Judea
Died: c. 970 B.C.
Best Known As: The child giant-slayer who became Israel's king
The heroic yet human life of David, ancient Israel's most important king, is told in the biblical books 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles. The eighth and youngest son of Jesse of Bethlehem, David is appointed to be court musician and armor-bearer for Israel's first king, Saul. The boy kills a giant enemy soldier, http://www.answers.com/topic/goliath-1, becomes intimate friends with Saul's son, Jonathan, and eventually succeeds Saul as king. Under David's rule (circa 1010 to 970 B.C.), Israel's regions unite and win battles with surrounding enemies. Jerusalem comes to be known as the "City of David" and the center of government and worship. David's turbulent personal life includes adultery with a soldier's wife, Bathsheba, and the death of his own rebel son, Absalom. Before he dies he anoints another son, http://www.answers.com/topic/king-solomon, the next king. David's lineage holds an honored place in two religions: Judaism, which awaits the coming of the "Messiah, son of David," and Christianity, whose scriptures trace http://www.answers.com/topic/jesus-christ\'s Davidic ancestry.

Many prayers and songs in the biblical book of Psalms have headings that associate them with David. Their actual authorship is uncertain... Islam's Koran lists David as a prophet (Sura 6), noting in Sura 38 his repentance for his sin with Bathsheba... http://www.answers.com/topic/michelangelo\'s sculpture of David is considered a classic of Renaissance art... The Star of David, a Jewish symbol in recent centuries, appears on the flag of the modern state of Israel... David has been portrayed many times in the movies, by actors including http://www.answers.com/topic/gregory-peck (David and Bathsheba, 1951), http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-gere (King David, 1985) and http://www.answers.com/topic/max-von-sydow-actor (the TV movie Solomon, 2005).



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_interesting_facts_about_King_David#ixzz1cnZU47NU

Hey Abra...

Was begining to wonder if you had fallen off the earth.

I read the article you posted and this was the conclusion.

That is hardly "proof" of anything.

Yes I can claim that it is NOT PROOF. It does not begin to convince me, or anyone else. Otherwise scholars and historians would not still be arguing over this issue.

Not proof.

You have no concept of what constitutes proof.
Proof is not just something that convinces someone who wants to believe it or already believes it, it must convince someone who does not believe it.

It does not come close.

P.S. Being mentioned in Wiki does not prove King David actually existed.

Only to you my dear Jeanie. Again, things are only proof as much as one is willing to allow it to be. You wish for the bible to be false, therefore you will see it as such and or any other that applies to such. It all will remain false to you because you wish for it to be, you don't wish for it to be real or wish to worship God. You will only see what you want your eyes to see.

No I do not wish for the Bible to be false. How ever, you wish for it to be true.

Why would I wish for the Bible (or any book that claims to be true) to be false? I seek truth. I seek valid convincing evidence for any claim.

It is not proof if you cannot convince anyone who seeks valid and real convincing evidence.

Your claims about what you think I wish for regarding worshiping God are out of line and ridiculous. You have no idea how I worship God.

I am a pantheist and I worship God by worshiping all of life.

So don't assume you know anything about my spiritual beliefs or my wishes.

You assume way too much.