Does anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?

Author: disgusted

Posts

Total: 70
Topic's author
#1
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
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?


#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@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".

Topic's author
#3
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
All that wealth. Surely someone mentioned it.
#4
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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!


Topic's author
#5
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
There are plenty of records from that time and exactly ZERO mention a King Solomon.
#6
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
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".


 
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.







#8
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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'.  




#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.

#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Matthew is written in Greek, it makes sense that it would make use of a widely known Greek translation when quoting Isaiah.

Topic's author
#11
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
#12
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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.”




#13
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@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.


Topic's author
#14
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@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

#16
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#17
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#18
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@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
#19
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I believe Jesus was conceived and born in the usual way, to an ordinary married couple.


#20
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I believe the bible's account.
Topic's author
#21
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@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.

Topic's author
#22
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
Topic's author
#23
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@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".
#25
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@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.  
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I take the pedigrees with a large pinch of salt. 

I know , as you do all the scriptures. I have to wonder why you even bother with any kind of response, ever..


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.   
Contrary for the sake of of it?  I also doubt that " the hebrew kept reliable, meticulous birth records for the general population over hundreds of years".   

But you have simply and for the sake of being contrary,  overlooked the fact that we are NOT talking of the general population, we are talking of ROYALTY and the High Priesthood of which there are records.

I do accept there are contradictions between Matthew and Luke concerning the genealogies. But none of this is answering the op. so here is the original question.

Does anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?

Added: 11.26.18 06:27AM1 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?






#27
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
But you have simply and for the sake of being contrary,  overlooked the fact that we are NOT talking of the general population, we are talking of ROYALTY and the High Priesthood of which there are records.
Jesus was - allegedly - the son of an ordinary carpenter, not of a priest or prince.   I don't know about you but i'd be hard pressed to saying definite about my ancestors more tha 2 or three generations back and with the Hebrews we are talking about a barely literate society with limited record keeping capacity who had suffered generations of tribal wars, exile andoccupation by foreigners.

imo both nativity stories in the bible are fictitious and the pedigrees especially so.  

Topic's author
#28
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
They just keep running away mate.

20 days later

Topic's author
#29
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
So NO extra biblical evidence that any society anywhere at anytime ever paid this Solomon any tribute ever.
#30
eventuality001
eventuality001's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 66
0
0
3
eventuality001's avatar
eventuality001
0
0
3
Could it be that Solomon was a businessman who had the skills and ability to make and create a lot of products for people made with Gold and expensive materials.  ?   He was friendly with anyone who would be friendly with Him.

For example here in   -  1Ki 10:13  And king Solomon gave unto the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatsoever she asked, beside that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. So she turned and went to her own country, she and her servants. 

and also  here -     1Ki 9:11  (Now Hiram the king of Tyre had furnished Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his desire,) that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. 
1Ki 9:12  And Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him; and they pleased him not. 
1Ki 9:13  And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day. 
1Ki 9:14  And Hiram sent to the king sixscore talents of gold. 

It seems that Solomon was very giving and helpful to everyone around Him and that He blessed everyone who was around Him.  The neighboring countries that surrounded Him allowed Him and His kingdom to be a positive influence in all of their lives   -  and through all of this, He became a powerful depository and banking financial institution and mechanism that caused many wealthy people to give unto HIm many treasures, gifts, and materials of gold, silver and things in thankfulness and in memorial to HIm....

His influence and blessings that He developed throughout The Middle East were trusted and respected.  Perhaps because He took their gifts and interests and made their world a wonderful place with such an overwhelming force of prosperity that they never imagined could be possible.

I believe that He was a very giving and sharing person.   Although He did have enemies, He managed to defeat them and did not kill them after His victory but he put the prisoners of war to work and allowed them to rebuild their lives while repaying HIm for their aggressive violent assault. 

Also, I noticed that Solomon was heavily involved in involving his own world with gathering objects concerning the idols, gods and deities, temples and thrones and  IDOLS  of other pagans around Him.  Perhaps the pagans were mesmerized and shocked and humored by His free spirit and total lack of religious fanaticism that the pagans felt was so strictly entrenched in the personalities and laws / rules  -  of other previous Hebrew Kings before Him  .
        Solomon never worshiped the pagan idols and gods and images and deities but perhaps many people wanted a chance to influence Solomon so that they could incorporate their government and religious systems into the territory and in the invincible and mighty military forces that he commanded, all the while knowing that He was a positive force to be trusted.   Perhaps the Pagans around Him literally learned things and found such success that they never knew could be possible, by working together with one another through Him -  the most trusted source they ever historically experienced.    it was more of a financial, fiscal and business control of the total area - that even people who would never normally do trade with Him - were more or less forced to involve Him in their lives fiscally.