To my knowledge (but I am not a scholar or an expert) there is no evidence for the existence of any of the Biblical characters from the Bible. If you go to the section of the forums under religion and irrationalities, the discussion about this is quite in depth.

Go to the recent posts feature on your page, the one from todangst titled : A silence screams, it also goes into pretty in depth information that Jesus never existed.

The believers take the inscription found on the Tel Dan Inscription and the Mesha Stele to claim that these support the Bible characters.

The part of the Tel Dan Inscription pertinent to Israel is "I killed Jehoram son of Ahab king of Israel" and the part pertinent to Judah is "and I killed Ahaziahu son of Jehoram king of the House of David."

The use of the "house of David" in effect is the same as "sons of Zeus" and is equally without proof or substantiation either one was real.

No argument, kingdoms of Israel and Judah did exist at this time period. What their god beliefs actually were is not indicated and/or supported. There are lots of Canaanite idols such as Asherah spread throughout both Israel and Judah. There are of course none for the invisible god of Judah.

See Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

All this really says of Israel is that Ahab was once a king, which is supported by Assyrian records and he had a descendant who was also king named Jehoram.

Ahab is one of the Omride kings and along with others fought Assyrian king Shalmaneser III at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE. 

See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_III and - http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/meso/obelisk.html

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Qarqar and see - http://www.livius.org/q/qarqar/qarqar_battle.html and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurkh_Monolith

The part of the Mesha Stele which is pertinent mentions Omri, Ahab, Israel and a mention of artifacts of Yahweh taken from the altar-hearths, or places of sacrifice, in effect the high places.

see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

and - from the Louvre

and the translation - http://www.specialtyinterests.net/moabite.html

None of this even the Mesha Stele indicate exactly what the beliefs of these people were. Even the mention of Yahweh does not mean that it is not of the Ugaritic Canaanite belief as opposed to the Judahite developed practices. The mention of the house of David in no way substantiates David as real any more than Zeus or Hercules, as many claimed to be sons of Zeus in inscriptions.

See also "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein.

Many kings of both Israel and Judah after Omri are mentioned in Assyrian and Egyptian records and inscriptions. This mention does not in any way inform us of what beliefs were practiced in their countries.

These records also show conflicting views towards some of the claims of the characters in the OT.

Using names of kings, cities, or place names in the OT does not make the storyline true. Fiction writers of today do so all the time.

David and Soloman are not mentioned in Assyrian or Egyptian inscriptions. The only mention is in the stela I referenced, which is "house of David" and is nor more valid than "sons of Zeus".

When you say Bible character, as I indicated many of the kings of Judah and Israel are Bible characters and are mentioned, though that doesn't tell you anything more than they were kings. Babylon is mentioned as are kings from other lands as well but that doesn't mean they weren't incorporated in a storyline which is fictional. It only means the writer of the specific book knew their names, no more. When magic and Sci-Fi are added in and throughout the Bible with the characters it means to me it is fiction or storytelling.

Other Bible characters such as Moses, Abraham, Jacob and the like have no mention in history.

The use of names of real people is an attempt to give the storyline legitimacy, though it falls flat on its face in contrast to the history from other lands. A good example is Nebuchadnezzar and the book of Daniel. It is filled with errors and omissions. Nabonidus the king when Cyrus conquers Babylon is not mentioned at all. It has errors calling Nabonidus' son Belshazar the son of Nebucahdnezzar. It also is filled with fantasy and Sci-Fi discrediting itself within the 1st 2 chapters

A long time ago, a great nation spanned a continent.  It was filled with such marvels of technology that many of its people believed in magic.  The nation went from sea to shining sea with the great cities of New York and San Francisco on opposite coasts.  Many were the wonders and heroes of that mighty nation..........

See, anyone can do it.

Another tired old point that gets refuted over and over, is when the Christians try : WELL YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY OF THE PEOPLE FROM HISTORY EXISTED. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN THEM BUT NOT THE BIBLE ?

I mentioned on other threads that I have a particular affinity for all things medieval and pertaining to the Middle Ages.

Like Blake was stating, we have several accounts from several different sources that formulate some notions of history.

For instance, when the film Braveheart was so huge, there is this scene where William Wallace and Robert the Bruce meet on a battlefield. No such event is recorded in history. Judging by all of the evidence of where these two men were located at the time that battle took place, judging by the age difference, the difference between royalty and peasantry, the countries that they were reported in, it is unlikely that this event took place. When it comes to the Middle Ages, lots of legends and lots of quotes are attributed to historical figures that in all likelihood never took place. But that is what the historians real job is, to find the truth as we know it.

Now, here is the thing that seems to stump the Christians every time, even though I have heard many Atheists use it.

If, by some fluke, I awoke tommorrow morning and found out that say, King Henry VIII or Richard the Lionheart never existed, that would not alter my outlook on the world, influence my decisions or really change me in any way. I heard Christopher Hitchens make that point  about Socrates. He mentioned that if people could prove that Socrates was not a real person, it would not alter his life because his entire existence did not hinge on Socrates.

After all, The Illiad and the Odyssey are attributed to Homer. But we truly do not really know who Homer was, if Homer was a compiliation of several writers or if there was a Homer. Doesn't stop it from being the stuff of legend. But no one goes around with a copy of the Illiad saying "Homer wrote it like this, Homer wanted it to be this way, it has to be the way Homer said it cause it is written right here. We have to go by Homer,".

Problem with religion, is that it takes one text, that has not really been verified anywhere else and jumps to the conclusion "YEP, THIS IS THE WAY IT ALL HAPPENED. RIGHT HERE. IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE, SO THAT MEANS IT IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND FOR ANYONE TO QUESTION THE SACRED TEXT IS BLIND TO GOD".

When you look at how many times that the Bible has been translated, and then you account for all the scriptures that ended up on the cutting room floor, and then you take into account that monks did nothing but transcribe old texts onto new texts for hundreds of years, the idea of taking one text as an absolute is ridiculous.

Well, we can do even better. We know for a fact that George Washington was real. We also know that there are many stories surrounding him.

For example, supposedly, he could crack open walnuts with his bare hands. At least people who knew him seemed to believe that. In truth, it is a rare ability but I have seen it done. Can I say for certain that Washington did it? no.

Then there is the story of throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac river. Well, it is a fairly wide river and I doubt that even a major league pitcher could manage such a feat. Or the story about the cherry tree. There really only is one source for that and the guy was known to have plagiarized a number of incredible stories and attached them to Washington. As far as I know, nobody has ever found another version of the story of the cherry tree that was a probable source. Still, in that Weems was known to have essentially made up a bunch of stuff about Washington, we can't really say for sure that any of his work is valid historically.

Very very true, and it makes them very uncomfortable when you start poking all sorts of holes into their Bible stories.

I think that the deep intolerance that drives all of the more fundamentalist religious people is doubt. I think on some deep subconscious level, no matter how much they attempt to suppress their reason and ability to rationalize, it is still there. I think at the back of their minds is the nagging doubt that the whole god thing is total nonsense. This makes them afraid to admit that their whole existence could be a lie, thus the reason for all the intolerant hatred of people that refuse to accept it. I have nothing to base that off of , other than the fact that my mind always had the uncomfortable doubt floating around, even during childhood when all I heard was practically religious indoctrination. I accepted it as truth at the time, but there was still a shadow of doubt.

Do all the Christians have that same doubt ? It would be nice to think so.