Von Daniken's hypothesis has been shown to be specious repeatedly.

So, if scriptural evidence is "all there is" regarding historical figures, then it is simply not enough to be taken as proof or to be assumed or declared to be true.

The most likely possibility is that the stories were just fictional.
No other evidence exists outside of scripture for these characters.



It comes from the same "scriptural evidence" that you accept for the existence of fictional characters.

How or why would you assume one is true and the other is not?

Well maybe... just maybe, in two thousand years, a colony of humans will find that book and make it into their holy scripture and claim that it was inspired by God therefore it must be true.

After all, it would be two thousand years old... it must be true.

But I never said it was proof, but it is also not proof that the figure didn't exist. Why is this difficult?




Flawed logic. See the example of Hannibal.





Again, if you employ such simplistic reasoning, every ancient text is dubious. As an historian, one learns to glean history from myth. Every text has to be evaluted on its merits, to simply say there is no archaeological evidence for an historical figure, therefore that individual never existed is flawed methodology.

But of course, this scenario never happened with most ancient texts, they've been handed down continuously.



Now you're being silly.

My point is, that there are three world religions all based on these characters of King David, Abraham, Joshua, Moses, etc. etc. and all those who came after that.

These are important figures (alleged to have existed) that people still cling to in the way they justify war with each other.

I would think that people would want some real evidence that would prove once and for all if these figures truly existed. But there is no real evidence. So why do people just assume they did? That is unscientific.

If people found out that these characters were all fictional, it would destroy three major religions. There is no wonder why a lot of historians don't want to go there. But there are some people who do know the truth.

Others, like me, refuse to believe in myths.

All you historians can say is that they might have existed. You can say that it is possible that they existed. But you cannot assume they did.



Maybe that is how a historian does things, but a scientist does not go around wasting their time trying to prove that a thing or a person did not or does not exist. That is silly.

If I tell you that big foot exists you might ask me for proof. How would you respond if I said that you are the one who must prove that he does not exist?

That is silly.

And yet, there is no evidence they didn't exist.




What people want and what is available are two different things. Much has been lost from antiquity.




They don't assume, there is the literary evidence.



History belongs to the humanities, not the sciences.



Such evidence is difficult to imagine.




Because it would be futile.



No, they don't know any such thing, they posit hypotheses.




Well, it is up to you, but if something cannot be proven to be a myth, then it is not a fact.

I have often been asked why I "deny" that Jesus ever existed?

Why not?

What proof is there that he did?

For me to "deny" a truth, the truth must first be proven or obvious.

It has not been proven, nor is it obvious that King David or Abraham ever existed.

If it cannot be proven to be a fact, or a myth, then what is it?

It is what you believe it is.

For me, it is a myth.

But the problem with most people is that they treat myths as if they were facts and then they demand people like me, who call them myths, to disprove their beliefs.

Believing a story does not make it fact.

No, I never did assume they existed, but I cannot prove they didn't exist, therefore the point is moot.





History is not a science.



This argument is flawed because Bigfoot is supposed to be a contemporary creature, not a human figure in ancient texts.




As a comparison, yes.

Therefore, if you believe that King David really existed, and Abraham really existed, based on a story written in an ancient text, then your belief is purely faith based. You faith is on whom ever wrote those stories and you don't even know for sure who did that.

Pretty flimsy if you ask me.

You're not comprehending this well.



That is up to you, but it cannot be proven.



But aren't you doing the same thing in reverse?



No, but believing it IS a story doesn't necessarily make it so.

It is, but it's all we have as historians, and there is nothing to state that these people didn't exist, except the point of view of some modern authors who will never know whether their hypothesis is true or not.

I don't know what you think you are trying to argue, but as you said the point is basically moot.

My claim is that King David is a fictional Character. So is Abraham and all those alleged people that came after him.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

I make my claim because there is no credible evidence that they are anything other than a mythical fictional story.

It is not my burden to prove they did not exist simply because there is and has never been any proof that they did.

Scripture, text, is not proof.

There are millions of books written today. Being written does not make anything true. Some books claim to be true some do not. A claim that a book is true still does not make it true. It could be a lie.

Text is not evidence.

Scripture, (The Bible) is not a history book.

I cannot say whether Jesus existed or not, but contemporary figures in the texts clearly did (i.e. Herod I, Herod II Agrippa, Pontius Pilatus), so just because Jesus didn't strike coin, or leave an inscription on an edifice, I cannot emphatically deny he existed.

If he did exist, he certainly was not a descendant of King David or Abraham cause they did not exist.

I'm trying to demonstrate historical methodology.



Which is an opinion, not a fact.



And I could challenge you to prove it right, it is just as futile.



Apart from the literary evidence.



Clearly, I am wasting my time for you have no background in the discipline, it's not your fault, or a flaw, it's just the way it is.



Some of it is.

From Wiki about Shlomo Sand:

Sand believes that the idea of Jews being obliged to return from exile to the Promised Land was alien to Judaism before the birth of Zionism, and that the holy places were seen as places to long for, not to be lived in. On the contrary, for 2,000 years Jews stayed away from Jerusalem because their religion forbade them from returning until the Messiah came. According to Sand, the ancestry of Central and Eastern European Jews stems heavily from mediæval Turkic Khazars who were converted to Judaism, a theory which was popularized in a book written by Arthur Koestler in 1976.

Actually there does seem to be some archeological evidence for the
Kingdom of David - it was a long time ago ~ 1000 years before Christ.

Archaeological evidence

Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele
The Tel Dan Stele.
Main articles: Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele

A fragment of an Aramean victory stele discovered in 1993 at Tel Dan and dated c.850–835 BC contains the phrase ביתדוד (bytdwd). Because the ancient Aramaic script is written without vowels, different readings are possible. Scholars agree that the first part should be read בֵּית (beyt), meaning "house". However, the second part can be read as דּוֹד (dod), which means "uncle" or "beloved" or as דָּוִד (David). The phrase therefore can mean either "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David".[3] Since the stele recounts the victory of an Aramean king over "the king of Israel",[4] the translation of "ביתדוד" as "the House of David" is not illogical.[5][6]

The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David, in two places: in line 12, where the interpretation is uncertain, and בת[ד]וד in line 31, where one destroyed letter must be supplied (here it is bracketed in the middle).[7] Kenneth Kitchen has proposed that an inscription of c. 945 BC by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq I mentions "the highlands of David."[8] Although a reference to King David in this geographical name is not certain, some scholars suggest it is reasonable.[9]