Is the Bible Just a Myth?

[Kenny]

But Egypt did exist before 2340 BCE. According to Genesis, Egypt was the son of Ham, the survivor of the Flood.

If there were global flood, then it would have killed everyone living in this land, and that would have stopped culture. But the Egypt after the Flood is exactly the same as the one before 2340 BCE; they were still using the same writings - hieroglyphs and hieratic, hence there language is the same - before and after; there arts (styles) were unchanged - before and after 2340 BCE; and they were still building pyramids as the age before the Flood did.

Just as a point of clarification (I might be misunderstanding) as I take a small example for questioning purposes.

Could you please refer me to two examples... one before the flood and one after the flood?

 

[ArtieE]

No... I don't think that there are misses. There are some possibilities of Hebrews in Egypt... just not irrefutable evidence. Archaeology is painstakingly slow.

Have you read this? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

 

[Coder]

The Bible may be historically correct in many areas and less so in others. In the Bible, I think that the facts may often be secondary/incidental to the message. It's not intended to be a history book. I think a key message of the Exodus for example, is that God freed His people (Jewish people may be able to explain more than I). Perhaps some Jews and Christians consider the parting of the sea to be a "myth" or not 100% literal?

 

[oldbadger]

The Bible may be historically correct in many areas and less so in others. In the Bible, I think that the facts may often be secondary/incidental to the message. It's not intended to be a history book. I think a key message of the Exodus for example, is that God freed His people (Jewish people may be able to explain more than I). Perhaps some Jews and Christians consider the parting of the sea to be a "myth" or not 100% literal?

The Exodus could easily have really occured. If we take some facts from the commemorative feast..................

1. It is held at the time of a Spring equinoctial Full moon.
.... The highest high-tide and lowest low-tide occurs at that time.
.... Only people like slaves would have worked the papyrus beds and marshes.
.... Only slaves would have known the channels, wades and 'beds'.
.... The Red Sea was probably the Reed-Sea.
...... So the Israelites had folks who could lead them out through the Reed Sea on (possibly) only one day of the whole year.
..... After low water, the incoming tide woud have been tremendously powerful, fast and very very high.
.... if by any chance there had been a 3 day SE blow, a storm, then you could add a storm surge to this, but then, of course, low tide would not have been quite so low... maybe that didn't matter.

Maybe somebody can add to this? When exactly is the exodus recorded to have happened, exactly on a spring full moon or maybe 1-2 days afterwards? I ask because the highest spring equinoctial tide occurs about 1.5 days after the full moom. Can anybody help?

 

[gnostic]

This is a great post and I have held off so as to not have a cursory answer.

I think it is mistake for some Christians of today to view the bible is history book, by taking the narratives as literal.

Clearly it isn't one (history).

ps. I hoped that you understand why I didn't comment on your battle of Gettysburg. If there are archaeological evidences that support the historical accounts, then I wouldn't call it myth.

Genesis 10 clearly don't align with historical accounts or with archaeology.

I personally don't find anything wrong is seeing some parts of being historical (for instances, the Assyrian intervention in the war between Judah and the alliance of Israel and Aram in 732 BCE, or that of the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BCE, because there outside sources to match some biblical accounts) when the bible did get history right, while in other parts of the bible are myths ( e.g. Genesis Flood and the Tower of Babel, the Exodus).

Just because parts of the bible are myths, don't mean it is bad. Myths are more than just being fiction; they are traditional narratives, where people try to understand their past, but don't have the know-how to investigate the history.

The difference between fiction and myth is that myth has the dynamics to change or grow. And the values of the myth come from not historical accuracy, but from the symbolic meanings they contained.

Instead of attempting to twist the story of creation (Genesis 2 & 3) into history, look instead to their meanings, like the moral values in the story of Eden:

• the consequences of disobeying god,
• or taking responsibility for one's own action (e.g. Genesis 3, Adam tried to shift the blame on Eve, and Eve shift it on to the serpent),
• or any others, since the story of Eden is open to many interpretations.

I see Genesis, like that of creation, of Eden or the Flood, as mean of conveying the messages, which stemmed not from history, but from the lessons they might teach (hence myth is an allegory), pretty much like Jesus' parables.

It would be a mistake to view his parables as having historical values. No, the true values of his parables come from the moral lessons that Jesus is attempting to impart to his disciples.

 

[gnostic]

Just as a point of clarification (I might be misunderstanding) as I take a small example for questioning purposes.

Could you please refer me to two examples... one before the flood and one after the flood?

Look, ken.

I have already given you more than one example.

Had the Flood really hit globally, then the old culture should have stopped, bringing new culture in.

Like the one you had just quoted from me, regarding to Egypt.

If we are to believe that Egypt was indeed the son of Ham, born after the Flood. If Egypt (person) moved into Egypt, some 20 years or more later, then he would have brought a culture that was different than one before his arrival.

But there is no evidences in break of civilisation, which would have cause drastic changes. If Teti was indeed the king at the time of the Flood in 2340 BCE, then that Flood should have killed him and his family. Instead we have continuity of civilisation and culture that remain unchanged.

Teti built pyramid just as predecessor (Unas) did before him, and his son Pepi I after him. Hieroglyphs are found in Teti's tomb within the pyramid, the same writing method used in Unas' tomb before him, and in Pepi's tomb after him.

If Egypt, the son of Ham, was a newcomer, then that the cycle of pyramid-building and leaving writings within the pyramids, should have stopped with the Flood.

It didn't, which mean the Flood didn't happen.

And the pyramid-building began in the 3rd dynasty, back in 27th century BCE, reached its peak in the 4th dynasty, with perfectly-shaped pyramids at Giza. But politically, economically, militarily and culturally, the 5th and 6th dynasties clearly show their decline. And the decline had nothing to do with any Flood.

But getting back to your question, since there were no Flood, then there is no BEFORE and no AFTER the Flood. As this post and previous post indicated, there were no break in Egyptian culture.

 

[Neo Deist]

"Is the Bible Just a Myth?"

No, it is a real book.

 

[gnostic]

"Is the Bible Just a Myth?"

No, it is a real book.

 

[Neo Deist]

This is a comment that so many people use saying that the Bible is, indeed, mythical stories. And yet I find it so interesting, as archeological discoveries continue, that it continues to validate what was written.

The Bible is not a literal, history textbook. Some of the stories have some truth to them, but many are merely allegorical or certain words/images are metaphorical. If you are trying to hang on to the Bible being infallible, let it go. The Bible is not to be worshiped, only God is.

Even if you say that the Bible is God's word, you need to realize that the original works (called the Autographs) of Moses and other biblical authors, have long been lost or destroyed. All we have are copies of copies. I am fine with someone saying that the Autographs are infallible, but since we don't have them it is a moot point.

Put your focus on God, not a book that is over 2,000 years removed from a culture that can't be viewed through a modern lense.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Ok... I just don't agree in the case of the Bible. Reason for that is that it continues to be supported by archaeological discoveries. However, you could hold on to the position that the "miracle" portions were meant to be myths.

Seeing how there are errors, contradictions and plagiarism in it, I am not sure I would rate it anything else but myth.

 

[Kenny]

I think it is mistake for some Christians of today to view the bible is history book, by taking the narratives as literal.

Clearly it isn't one (history).

ps. I hoped that you understand why I didn't comment on your battle of Gettysburg. If there are archaeological evidences that support the historical accounts, then I wouldn't call it myth.

I understood.

 

[Kenny]

Look, ken.

I have already given you more than one example.

Had the Flood really hit globally, then the old culture should have stopped, bringing new culture in.

Like the one you had just quoted from me, regarding to Egypt.

If we are to believe that Egypt was indeed the son of Ham, born after the Flood. If Egypt (person) moved into Egypt, some 20 years or more later, then he would have brought a culture that was different than one before his arrival.

And the pyramid-building began in the 3rd dynasty, back in 27th century BCE, reached its peak in the 4th dynasty, with perfectly-shaped pyramids at Giza. But politically, economically, militarily and culturally, the 5th and 6th dynasties clearly show their decline. And the decline had nothing to do with any Flood.

1. First, you make some broad assumptions
   1. That culture and languages were completely different before Noah. It is more likely that before Noah, most languages had a commonality. Similarities of writings, if not exactly the same, before and after the flood would be expected.
   2. If the Patriarchal timeline is correct, we are talking about 10 interlinking generations. Hardly enough time to create a difference in culture and languages.
   3. that your archaeological timeline is completely correct with no margin of error - this is the biggest factor, IMO. What is the solid evidence that your timeline for pyramids are correct?

      1. There have recently been a number of speculative theories concerning the age of the Great Sphinx, but no material evidence exists to suggest that its history should be revised.

      2. http://discoveringegypt.com/pyramids-temples-of-egypt/pyramids-of-giza/
      3. IF dates were so firm, why would there be a "number of speculative theories" about age of the Sphinx? Although not a pyramid, it emphasizes the reality of the difficulty to establish timeframes.
2. Second, you mentioned that the flood happened in 2340 BC. - Was it?
   1. Before 2500 - http://biblehub.com/timeline/old.htm
   2. Around 2400 - http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/timeline.html
   3. Obviously there is a question about time - 2340 fits your narrative but how solid is the date?

But getting back to your question, since there were no Flood, then there is no BEFORE and no AFTER the Flood. As this post and previous post indicated, there were no break in Egyptian culture.

I'm not saying you are wrong for it gives me something to chew on.

However, to say there was no flood when so many religions have the same message:

Flood myths have been around probably since man first started oral traditions. The most well known in Western culture is the story of Noah's flood from the Bible but there are many other stories. The Sumerians were probably the first to write down their flood myths with the story of Gilgamesh in around 2,600 BC.

In Europe Plato wrote of the city of Atlantis that swallowed up by the sea. It is said he got his story from the ancient Egyptians. This isn't to say that Europe did not have any original flood myths, as they did. The Arcadians, Samothrace, ancient Germans, Scandinavians, Celtic, Welsh, Lithuanian, Transylvanian, and Turkish peoples all had various forms of flood myths popping up in their culture.

In Asia the Vogul, Samoyeds, Yenisey-Ostyak, Kamchadale, Ataic, Tuvinian, Mongolian, Sagaiye, Buryat, Bhil, Kamar, Assam, Tamil, Lepcha, Tibetian, Singpho, Lushai, Lisu. Lolo, Jino, Karen, Chingpa, Chinese, Korean, Munda, Santal, Ho, Banar, Kammu, Zhuang, Sui, Shan, Tsuwo, Bunun, Ami, Benua-Jakun, Kelantan, Ifugao, Atá, Mandaya, Tinguian, Batak, Nias, Engano, Dusun, Dyak, Ot-Danom, Toradja, Alfoor, Rotti, and Nage all had their different versions of flood myths.

In Africa flood myths can be seen in the cultures of the Cameroon, Masai, Komililo Nandi, Kwaya, Pygmy, Ababua, Kikuyu, Bakongo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua , Yoruba, Ekoi, Efik-Ibibio, and Mandingo.

In Australia the Aboriginals of each region seemed to have a different flood myth and hundreds of tribes in the Americas each had their own wild stories of flooding as well. These stories often involved animals, sometimes rescuing people, sometimes riding the storm out with boats. In our current modern day world most of the major religions still have at least one flood myth among their texts.

The Common Threads
Although all the flood myths vary, sometimes to large degrees, many of them have some thread of commonality. Often these stories are told about one human character or one human family. Animals are involved in many of these stories and there is almost always a moral, with the flood coming only after the human race has committed some wrong doing.

http://hubpages.com/education/Some-Speculations-on-the-Commonality-of-Flood-Myths

One can only wonder why people, who supposedly have no connection, from the lone continent of Australia to the tribes in the Americas all have a flood narrative.

 

[Shad]

No... I don't think that there are misses. There are some possibilities of Hebrews in Egypt... just not irrefutable evidence. Archaeology is painstakingly slow.

The evidence points to Exodus and the Conquest as fiction which is a miss not a hit. Yes I know it is slow but there are reasons for this

Certainly, in times past, they have said things like King David never existed and Solomon's reign wasn't as large as it is depicted in the Bible, however, both points have now been adjusted because of new evidence.

Solomon's reign wasn't as large as claimed, the evidence points to his establishment of cities in Israeli proper not an empire. The evidence for David is from 700 BCE and based on a successor from the House of David. You are making huge leaps based on evidence that does not support it, in the case with Solomon. Even the most critical minimalist that is relevant accepts David existed. They just do not agree with the Biblical accounts as face value facts.

 

[Neo Deist]

One can only wonder why people, who supposedly have no connection, from the lone continent of Australia to the tribes in the Americas all have a flood narrative.

Because people back then lived by the water for survival. Heavy rains = floods. Hurricanes = floods. Tidal waves = floods. Snow melting = floods.

Someone else mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian story. It is the exact same story as Noah, only much older. Ancient people tended to be nomadic. Their stories traveled with them. There's nothing magical, mystical or divine about them.

 

[Kenny]

The evidence points to Exodus and the Conquest as fiction which is a miss not a hit. Yes I know it is slow but there are reasons for this



Solomon's reign wasn't as large as claimed, the evidence points to his establishment of cities in Israeli proper not an empire. The evidence for David is from 700 BCE and based on a successor from the House of David. You are making huge leaps based on evidence that does not support it, in the case with Solomon. Even the most critical minimalist that is relevant accepts David existed. They just do not agree with the Biblical accounts as face value facts.

I think it is still in flux as at one time they said King David never existed. (as you noted, they now believe differently)

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Solomon:
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bibl...rnea-davids-negev-border-fortress-network.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

There isn't anything that I know of that contradicts Solomon's reign.

 

[Kenny]

Because people back then lived by the water for survival. Heavy rains = floods. Hurricanes = floods. Tidal waves = floods. Snow melting = floods.

Someone else mentioned the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian story. It is the exact same story as Noah, only much older. Ancient people tended to be nomadic. Their stories traveled with them. There's nothing magical, mystical or divine about them.

OK... we will agree to disagree.

 

[gnostic]

Second, you mentioned that the flood happened in 2340 BC. - Was it?

1. Before 2500 - http://biblehub.com/timeline/old.htm
2. Around 2400 - http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/timeline.html
3. Obviously there is a question about time - 2340 fits your narrative but how solid is the date?

Thanks for those 2 links of 2 timelines.

But no, KenS, the flood didn't happen "before 2500 BCE", so you and link from biblehub have claimed.

It is funny how biblehub mange to calculate everything, counting backward, but then stop at "God Sends Abram to Egypt" with 2091 BCE.

It say Abraham died at age 175 (2123 AM or Anno Mundi), and biblehub give 1991 BCE. That should have provided year to Abraham's birth: 1991+175 = 2166 BCE.

With 2166 BCE (1948 AM), I can use work out the time between Abraham's birth and the flood. Which I have already done with my own calculation, see the Timeline of the Patriarchs (Dark Mirrors of Heaven, all in Anno Mandi, AM).

There is 292 years difference (1948 AM - 1656 AM = 292) between Abraham's birth (1948 AM) and Flood (1656 AM). So using this 2166 BCE, we will get the Flood occurring in 2458 BCE.

2166 BCE + 292 = 2458 BCE.

So it is not "Before 2500 BCE", as biblehub claimed.

With 2458 BCE, add 1656 AM, you will get the creation of Adam at 4114 BCE.

And you are are ignoring that all BCE calculations in biblehub timeframes and those in mine from Dark Mirrors of Heaven, are approximated dates. The Anno Mundi calculations are based on the Hebrew Scriptures - the Masoretic Text.

KJV and most western English translations are based on the Masoretic Text. It would provide different timelines particularly in Genesis, if I was using one of the following: Samaritan Torah or the Greek Septuagint manuscripts, because the dates would be very different. Even the Septuagint manuscripts (Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus) don't agree with each other.

But my calculations of Abraham's birth and year of the Flood, using biblehub's timeframes, would only be true, if biblehub was based on the translation of the Masoretic Text.

So Flood is not before 2500 BCE.

 

[gnostic]

As I have mentioned earlier, in my last post, I did my own calculations of the timeline of the Genesis, at my website, Dark Mirrors of Heaven, under the Timeline of the Patriarchs , and much of the dates are given in Anno Mundi (AM, meaning "year of the world", from the time of creation), instead of BCE ("before common era") or BC ("before Christ").

What is very interesting is the biblehub link. I think there is a glaring flaw in taking the years too literal, and the person who did biblehub timeline, has overlooked something.

I am talking about the time of Jacob's arrival with his family in Egypt, and the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt.

Now I understand that it state in Exodus 12:40-41, say that the Israelites have lived in Egypt for 430 years:

40 The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; 41 at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.

And biblehub give us the date of Moses leaving Egypt in 1446 BCE (Moses at age 80 at this time) and Jacob arriving in 1876 or 1875 BCE (at age 130). The difference does give us 430 years.

1446 BCE + 430 = 1876 BCE

Perfect. Right?

Now if we look at Moses' family tree, in Exodus 6:16-20, from Levi to Amram, Moses' father, giving age to each one, before they die:

16 These are the names of Levi's sons by their lineage: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; and the span of Levi's life was 137 years. 17 The sons of Gershon: Libni and Shimei, by their families. 18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel; and the span of Kohath's life was 133 years. 19 The sons of Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites by their lineage.

20 Amram took to wife his father's sister Jochebed, and she bore him Aaron and Moses; and the span of Amram's life was 137 years.

So Moses' line:

Levi, 137 years
Kohath, 133 years
Amram, 137 years​

Now, this passage give no age to when they became a "father", so it is difficult to work out each person was born. It doesn't show how old Levi when Kohath was born, or how old Kohath was when Amram was born, and it is the same with Amram to Moses. Exodus 6 only give us the ages of when each one died.

But in my calculations, I have managed to work out when the sons of Leah and Joseph were born, in AM:

Joseph was born in 2199 AM
Levi in 2190 AM​

This is guess work, of course, but I have taken into account of when Jacob married Leah and Rachel (2187 AM), and the time Jacob return to his family (2200 AM).

That would mean, when Jacob arrived in Egypt with his entire family. With the date from Levi's birth, I could work out how old he was Jacob arrived in Egypt (2238 AM, Levi at age 48) and when he died at age 137 in 2327 AM.

Now, using biblehub's date of 1875 BC, when Jacob arrived in Egypt, Levi would be born in 1923 BC (1875 + 48 = 1923 BC), and died in 1786 BC (1923 - 137 = 1786 BC).

Now, if subtract 430 years with the 80 years (the age Moses was in the exodus) and 89 years (that Levi has lived in Egypt), we get a gap of 261 years, between the death of 261 of Levi and birth of Moses.

Do you know why I am giving you all these dates and years?

To work out this gap of 261 years. This is the flaw I am talking about, KenS, if we follow biblehub's calculations of the Israelites living in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40-41).

That's a huge gap of unknown time. And the problem is this.

Moses was the son of Amram and Jochebed, and Jochebed was sister to Kohath, which would make her daughter of Levi.


Even if Jochebed was born on the year Levi died, she would be 261 years old, when she gave birth to Moses. That's highly unlikely.

But the bible didn't give us Levi's age when Jochebed was born, but we do know that she was born at some time after Jacob had migrated to Egypt:

59The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; she bore to Amram Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam.

I did however find reference to Levi''s age from non-canonical source: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, under the Testament of Levi.

8 And Jochebed was born in Egypt,
in my sixty-fourth year, for I was
renowned then in the midst of my
brethren.

(Source: Testament of Levi, https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-T7Y10PusEVDrsirI/The Testament Of Levi_djvu.txt)

If this age is true, Levi at 64 would mean the date would be 1859 BC (1923 BC - 64 = 1859 BC, or in 2254 AM).

Do you know what that would mean?

Jochebed would have to be 334 years old when she gave birth to Moses!

(1859 BC (birth of Jochebed) - 1525 BC (birth of Moses) = 334 years)

Do you now why there is a very serious flaw when the biblehub use the 430 years between Jacob in Egypt (1875 BC) and Moses' exodus (1446 BC)?

 

[Neo Deist]

OK... we will agree to disagree.

Science disagrees with you too...and no, Ken Ham's Creation Museum is not science. It is pseudo-science and ignores some glaring data. But since we are talking about Noah's Flood, here is something for you to chew on:

The Karroo Formation in Africa contains an estimated 800 billion fossils of vertebrates. Creationists point to that as showing all those animals dying at once, from the flood. However, there is a problem that they don't account for. If all 800 billion animals could be resurrected simultaneously (representing a mere 1% of vertebrates), and they range in size from a lizard to a cow, then you have an average of 2,100 animals living per square acre of land. That seems a bit crowded. Not to mention that dinosaurs are MUCH bigger than a cow.

The creationist answer is that the numbers are somehow skewed, even though countless scientists have come up with the same 2,100 per acre figure. The math does not lie.

The easiest explanation is this: Noah, if he even existed (remember the Epic of Gilgamesh), most likely had a story about a REGIONAL flood, and he packed up his family, belongings and livestock on a boat in order to survive. Because of the distance to the horizon being ~3 miles (curvature of the earth), to him it seemed that "the whole earth" was flooded, when in fact he was probably floating around on a large lake. The fact that Robert Ballard, a famous oceanographer, found an ancient shoreline 500+ feet below the surface of the Black Sea, confirms this regional flood hypothesis. Meltwater from the previous Ice Age spilled over from the Mediterranean Sea, flooding the region of the Black Sea.

Here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122800blacksea.html

Ancient people did in fact live by the water. Any type of flood would spawn a story about the event. That is why cultures from all over the globe share a flood story.

I also have to ask...did all the marsupials (pouch bearing mammals) take a vote and unanimously decided on Australia as their home? Marsupials are unique to Australia and not anywhere else. If so, how did they get there? Oh wait...the mysterious land bridge that does not exist, right?

 

[Shad]

I think it is still in flux as at one time they said King David never existed. (as you noted, they now believe differently)

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

You didn't bother to read nor cross referencing anything you linked otherwise you would of spotted a number of things. The Habiru theory has been dead for decades as the roots words are completely different. More so there is textual evidence of Haburi changing meaning making it an anachronism based argument that later identification is the same as past identification. Since the whole argument resets on the Haburi assertion the conclusion is no longer supported and my point maintained. The expulsion of the Hyksos was of the upper class not commoners on masse. Marfred himself contradicts your article but this is omitted for obvious reasons. There is no evidence that pointing to Hebrews within this expulsion rather than an adaption of 2, or more, stories assimilated and adapted for use by the later Israelite culture from a later group. Hence speculation that they "may have" been within the group. If's and maybe's do not make an argument. I would also point out that the article switch to Rohl's chronology 5 different times creating an inconsistent argument. It switches between the Hyksos point of view making it inconsistent. If accepting Kenyon's dating it no longer matches the Biblical narrative and my point is maintained. If rejecting Kenyon's dating then Jericho's destruction was not by the Hyksos and the identification can no longer be maintains. Two points which are mutually exclusive which refuted each other but are included as support of a conclusion is pure sophistry.

If you want I can go through each point showing errors, speculation, leaps to conclusions, equating evidence of a different narrative as the Biblical one itself, dating issues, site issues, etc. Nevermind that this evidence is not of the event itself but before and after. Besides I was talking about the Exodus not an exodus. I accept there was an expulsion event but the evidence does not support the biblical narrative itself nor it's religious claims. The evidence show adaption and assimilation from multiple sources not a group that can maintain a consistent identification from the pre-Exodus to later Israel.

Solomon:
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-kadesh-barnea-davids-negev-border-fortress-network.htm [/quote]

There are 36 fortresses dated to this timeline not 50.This has been the view since 95. Your article is outdated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

The seals are new but site's use has been established since the 90s.

There isn't anything that I know of that contradicts Solomon's reign.

I was pointing out the claim to having control over areas outside of Israeli not within. The mines and fortresses are all out news to me.