• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

    The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.

        The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don’t place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.

        • optissima@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

            That is simply a lie.

            I said “the most likely answer” is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.

            • optissima@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

              Your basis for discounting it is “it wasn’t written down.” That’s all oral tradition. I wasn’t trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you’re rolling back on it, I’ll take it as such.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Yet again, “most likely answer” does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That’s simply a lie.

                I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.

                Stop lying.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.

                    This is what you said:

                    I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

                    Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.

                    Just tell the truth for one fucking post.