Did David and solomon actually exist? some people say they didn't even exist?

Question

what say all of you, is the bible preserves adequately enough to shoe that solomon existed or not.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130717120518AAeKAvQ
there are several answers to this question where people say solomon didn't even exist, i believe they pure liars or totally deceived and brainwashed or propagandized

Answer 1

The archeological evidence is consistent with what the Bible says regarding the existence of David and Solomon.



How do we know that Socrates once lived? We only have Plato's books and he could have invented the character, like J K Rowling invented Harry Potter.

Answer 2

It is my understanding that they are historically support persons. I have read an account from external historians about the Queen of Sheba visiting King Solomon. This supported the biblical account of that event.

I have also read that the Kingdom of Israel was not as expansive as the bible tends to portray. David and Solomon were supposed to have expanded Israel from Babylon to Egypt. Historians have never supported that boundary. However, modern Israel was reported to have accomplished that same expansion with their 6-day war before being politically scaled back to the present borders.

A third possibility is that rulers in ancient times tended to erase the record of their predecessors in order to make their own accomplishments seem greater. They didn't want some previous king to outshine them so they would wipe off the early history and start their own history. Maybe they were politically opposite, or maybe they were simply jealous but the record would be wiped clean. Thus, it would not be surprising to have a lack of evidence of the great kings of Israel due to the fact that the Assyrians and Babylonians would have likely erased much of that record in order to establish their own record.

I also understand that external evidence has confirmed the return of the Jewish people to Palestine 70 years after the Babylonian capture.

While the record may be scanty, I believe enough has been found to satisfy the critics that the biblical record is accurate.

Answer 3

At present, the only factual statement one can make about David is that some time around the 8th century BCE, Israelite kings claimed to be descended from the House of David.



Now, this strongly implies that someone of that name existed, but we have very little archaeological evidence of an advanced Israelite civilization from the supposed period of David & Solomon.



Now, to be fair, the Muslims are making it basically impossible to do archaeology on the Temple Mount, so it might be a while before we can settle this question. But for now, it remains probable that SOMEONE existed by those names, but we cannot put them in the context of the archaeological record, at this point.



Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they existed, though it's also possible that they were just really well-organized Bedouins, as opposed to the Cecil B. DeMille portrayal of an ultra-advanced late Bronze age civilization.

Answer 4

The bible contains stories. Whether those stories are factual (or partially so, or not at all) depends on evidence from *other* than the bible. If other evidence confirms the bible stories, they're more likely correct. If other evidence shows the bible stories wrong, they're more likely wrong. The bible isn't used to confirm bible stories.



There is some scant external evidence that there was a King of Judea named "David." He was probably real. However, external evidence also clearly shows that his "kingdom" was not nearly as great and powerful and rich as the bible stories make it out to be, and no evidence confirms any supernatural stories of anything in the bible.

There's also scant evidence that "Solomon" actually existed, but once again evidence shows his "kingdom" was not nearly as great as the stories claim.



These two appear to be actual figures from history, whose stories were greatly embellished later on to make them appear grander than the actually were, and to include lots of supernatural nonsense about them.

Answer 5

The Bible cannot be used to claim they existed, any more than the bible could be used as evidence that Noah's ark existed.



There is no archaeological evidence for Solomon or his temple. Certainly if he had a kingdom in the area some evidence would exist for it, but there is none.

Answer 6

darn right thay excisted

david begat solomon all the way down to jesus christ

bible says so an bible comes from Jehovah

Answer 7

They seem to be pretty much as Jesus...



A lot of claims but with no direct evidence... if anything , they appear to be minor chiefs



'Believe' what you will...



IMHO

Answer 8

In the fourth year of his reign, in the second month of the year (the month Ziv [April-May]), in 1034 B.C.E., Solomon began to build the house of Jehovah on Mount Moriah. (1Ki 6:1) The building of the temple was peacefully quiet; the stones were fitted before being brought to the site, so that no sound of hammers or axes or of any tools of iron was heard. (1Ki 6:7) King Hiram of Tyre cooperated in supplying timbers of cedar and juniper trees in exchange for wheat and oil. (1Ki 5:10-12; 2Ch 2:11-16) He also furnished workmen, including an expert craftsman named Hiram, the son of a Tyrian man and a Hebrew woman. (1Ki 7:13, 14) Solomon conscripted for forced labor 30,000 men, sending them to Lebanon in shifts of 10,000 a month. Each group returned to their homes for two-month periods. Besides these, there were 70,000 burden bearers and 80,000 cutters. These last-named groups were non-Israelites.—1Ki 5:13-18; 2Ch 2:17, 18.



Inauguration of the temple. The tremendous building project occupied seven and a half years, being concluded in the eighth month, Bul, in 1027 B.C.E. (1Ki 6:37, 38) It appears that it took some time afterward to bring in the utensils and to get everything arranged, for it was in the seventh month, Ethanim, at the time of the Festival of Booths, that the sanctification and inauguration of the temple were carried out by Solomon. (1Ki 8:2; 2Ch 7:8-10) Therefore it must have taken place in the seventh month of 1026 B.C.E., 11 months after completing the building, rather than a month before the structure was completed (in 1027 B.C.E.), as some have thought.



Another view adopted by some is that the inauguration services were in Solomon’s 24th year (1014 B.C.E.), after he had also built his own house and other government buildings, which occupied 13 more years, or 20 years of building work in all. This view is supported by the Greek Septuagint, which interpolates certain words not found in the Masoretic text, at 1 Kings 8:1 (3 Kings 8:1 in LXX, Bagster) reading: “And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel in Sion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, this is Sion, in the month of Athanin.” However, a comparison of the accounts in Kings and Chronicles indicates that this is an incorrect conclusion.



The record in 1 Kings chapters 6 to 8 describes the temple construction and its completion; next it mentions Solomon’s 13-year government building program; and then, after speaking again at length of the temple construction and the bringing in of the “things made holy by David his father,” the account proceeds to describe the inauguration. This seems to indicate that the description of the government building program (1Ki 7:1-8) was inserted parenthetically, as it were, to round out and complete the discussion about the building operations. But the record at 2 Chronicles 5:1-3 appears to indicate more directly that the inauguration took place as soon as the temple and its furnishings were ready, for it reads: “Finally all the work that Solomon had to do for the house of Jehovah was at its completion, and Solomon began to bring in the things made holy by David his father; and the silver and the gold and all the utensils he put in the treasures of the house of the true God. It was then that Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men of Israel and all the heads of the tribes.” After detailing the installation of the ark of the covenant in the temple by the priests, who carried it from the City of David up to the temple hill, the account then goes on to describe the inauguration.—2Ch 5:4-14; chaps 6, 7.



Some have questioned the view just mentioned that the inauguration took place in the year after the temple was completed, because of 1 Kings 9:1-9, which speaks of Jehovah as appearing to Solomon after “the house of the king” was constructed, saying that he had heard Solomon’s prayer. (Compare 2Ch 7:11-22.) This was in his 24th year, after his 20-year building work. Was God 12 years in answering Solomon’s prayer given at the inauguration of the temple? No, for at that inauguration, at the close of Solomon’s prayer, “the fire itself came down from the heavens and proceeded to consume the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and Jehovah’s glory itself filled the house.” This was a powerful manifestation of Jehovah’s hearing of the prayer, an answer by action, and was acknowledged as such by the people. (2Ch 7:1-3) God’s later appearance to Solomon showed that he had not forgotten that prayer offered 12 years previously, and now he was answering it verbally by assuring Solomon of his response to it. God, at this second appearance, also gave Solomon added admonition to continue faithful as had David his father

Answer 9

it seems there is much evidence to support bible.

Answer 10

of course - Jesus descended from David



we believe GOD for HIS every word --- you must convince yourself