It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient relics are the first definite sign of the Bible's King David

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
• Evidence of Biblical king David
• David was 'not a mythological figure'
• Finds 'strengthen the idea of the Bible as history

Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, at the Hebrew University excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fortified city in Judah adjacent to the Valley of Elah, and found pottery, stone and metal tools, and many art and cult objects


For the first time, archaeologists have delved into the lives of ancient Biblical kings - exploring a shrine that pre-dates Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem by three or four decades.

It's the first evidence of a Judaic religion in the area at the time of King David - with the inhabitants of the ruins observing a ban on pork and on 'graven images' of animals or humans.

Because these shrines pre-date the construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem by 30 to 40 years, they provide the first physical evidence of a Judaic religion in the time of King David.

Located approximately 18 miles. southwest of Jerusalem in the valley of Elah, Khirbet Qeiyafa was a border city of the Kingdom of Judah opposite the Philistine city of Gath.

The city, which was dated by 10 radiometric measurements (14C) done at Oxford University on burned olive pits, existed for a short period of time between ca. 1020 to 980 BCE, and was violently destroyed.

Daily Mail

Shephelah, Haelah fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa overlooking Haelah valley, where the relics were found. Tel Azekah is in the background


The biblical tradition presents the people of Israel as conducting a cult different from all other nations of the ancient Near East by being monotheistic and an-iconic (banning human or animal figures).

The absence of cultic images of humans or animals in the three shrines provides evidence that the inhabitants of the place practiced a different cult than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines, observing a ban on graven images.

The findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa also indicate that an elaborate architectural style had developed as early as the time of King David.

Such construction is typical of royal activities, thus indicating that state formation, the establishment of an elite, social level and urbanism in the region existed in the days of the early kings of Israel.

These finds strengthen the historicity of the biblical tradition and its architectural description of the Palace and Temple of Solomon.

According to Prof. Garfinkel, ‘This is the first time that archaeologists uncovered a fortified city in Judah from the time of King David. Even in Jerusalem we do not have a clear fortified city from his period. Thus, various suggestions that completely deny the biblical tradition regarding King David and argue that he was a mythological figure, or just a leader of a small tribe, are now shown to be wrong

Daily Mail

The absence of cultic images of humans or animals in the three shrines provides evidence that the inhabitants of the place practiced a different cult than that of the Canaanites or the Philistines, observing a ban on graven images




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
the bible is a compilation of how many...

and so who banned pork?

and why do most Christians still eat it?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I only have problems with the miracles, misogyny, brutality & exaggerations in the Bible, not the "History"!



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Didn't somebody once say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Just sayin'.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OffensivAtheist
I only have problems with the miracles, misogyny, brutality & exaggerations in the Bible, not the "History"!

lol sounds like a personal problem. and if you truly think the Bible teaches Misogyny that's ridiculous. And yea the Bible is very brutal, its not what modern day churches try to make it out to be.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
the bible is a compilation of how many...

and so who banned pork?

and why do most Christians still eat it?



Uhm "The bigger picture" is completely lost on you.
I am embarrassed for you by that comment.

I am a Christian and I eat pork, sadly you think I cant. How little and how sad that you are so ignorant.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Looks like King David invented pot planters .
Nice one davie.

They banned pork way back when ,
because it was dangerous for your health ,
but factory farms , steroids ,antibiotics and hormones ,
make it much safer now !



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


After taking a long look at the images, I'm having a hard time drawing the conclution that the professer Yosef Garfinkel is. "Ancient relics are the first definite sign of the Bible's King David (and they're next door to a Philistine city where Goliath might have made his home"
Really?? Thats a big jump for such a small find.

PLUS... Look a the two images side by side (Dailymail link) There is clearly a face of an animal on the pot thing in the bottom left corner.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't buy it. Cool images none the less though. Too bad the Professer dosn't know what a face looks like.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
That object is far older than King David.That's Fred Flinstones TV.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by strongerthandirt
 


I agree. That is an obvious face...and that disproves the whole story. I think there was another on the opposite side that was broken off. This seems to me like another case of researchers jumping to conclusions and molding information to fit their beliefs.

Good find!...

edit on 10-5-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
good one(s)
and it does looks like the other face(s) on the other corner(s) is/are chipped off
sad attempt at justification

edit on 10-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
the bible is a compilation of how many...

and so who banned pork?

and why do most Christians still eat it?



Uhm "The bigger picture" is completely lost on you.
I am embarrassed for you by that comment.

I am a Christian and I eat pork, sadly you think I cant. How little and how sad that you are so ignorant.


i asked a couple questions,

and was prescribed what i "think" instead - LOL

then again, figures...



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Remember, the site had been extensively excavated for the past five years. The researchers did not come to hasty conclusions. It's the wording of the site that's confusing people. 'No cultic images of animals or humans' Jews observed the ban on graven images, aniconism, meaning no images of animals or humans depicting are allowed but images symbolic of the religion are allowed. In the case of the pottery with the lion face on it, my theory is that the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which had been very recently united by the strongest Jewish military leader at the time, king David. The lion had been a symbol for Israel going back to the initial establishment of the tribes in genesis, when Judah is described as a young lion and God as the lion of the tribe of Israel. This does not invalidate the statement that no graven images were found.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Remember, the site had been extensively excavated for the past five years. The researchers did not come to hasty conclusions. It's the wording of the site that's confusing people. 'No cultic images of animals or humans' Jews observed the ban on graven images, aniconism, meaning no images of animals or humans depicting are allowed but images symbolic of the religion are allowed. In the case of the pottery with the lion face on it, my theory is that the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which had been very recently united by the strongest Jewish military leader at the time, king David. The lion had been a symbol for Israel going back to the initial establishment of the tribes in genesis, when Judah is described as a young lion and God as the lion of the tribe of Israel. This does not invalidate the statement that no graven images were found.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


looks like a small child made it.

Seems right though.. most religious people have the intellects of children.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
• Evidence of Biblical king David
• David was 'not a mythological figure'
• Finds 'strengthen the idea of the Bible as history



I wonder if, in thousands of years, will people say the same thing about Spider-Man and New York, I mean, if the city exists and the artifacts exist, then the whole thing must be true, right? NOT!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 


looks like a small child made it.

Seems right though.. most religious people have the intellects of children.


I'm religious and I'm in the top 1% of the population, intellect wise.




top topics



 
3

log in

join