King David and the Minimalists

For years many Near East archaeologists and "scholars" have doubted the historicity of King David. No "proof" of him existed outside of the Bible.

These minimalists of the historicity of the Bible for any actions or people prior to the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians and Babylonians have used the "no evidence" label for years to discount King David, Moses, and the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

In the 1990s, two steles (large stones with writing on them) have been found. The more famous of the two is the Tel Dan Stele, and the other is the Moabite Stone. They were written by enemies of Israel in the 9th century BC and include the phrase: "House of David." In essence, it is strong evidence of the historicity of David by extraneous sources.

In 2008, evidence of King David's palace in Jerusalem finally was found.  This after over a century of searching in a very small area near the temple mount.

Although it would seem "no longer credible to deny that there was such a [Davidic] dynasty" (Reviews, Biblical Archaelogical Review, Nov/Dec 1996, pg 71,) many minimalists still deny his historicity, straining the obvious translation for other meanings. Literally they are "swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat."

How does this apply to the historicity of the Book of Mormon and other LDS claims? Easy. There are many minimalists that attack Mormonism on the same grounds that the Bible's historicity is attacked. Even when evidences are brought forth, there are those who will close their eyes to those evidences, because it does not fit their world-view.

A true scientist or truth seeker keeps an open-mind to all possibilities, until all the evidences and proofs are in. Whenever another evidence comes forward, those evidences are honestly weighed and included into the overall formula and dictates whether the theory/hypothesis has a leg to stand on.

Any honest person seeking evidences of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism will see that there are many evidences to support the claims made. So, the question then follows: Are you an honest person, and honest enough to make a full investigation of the evidences? Or would you be a minimalist and deny the evidences that don't meet your world view?