Original King David Tomb Monument a cross between Pyramid and an Obelisk with Columns

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Tell it to the archaeologists. Maybe send a letter to Archaeologist Today and point out their blunder?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Be careful about charging folks for not doing homework. King David was buried in the city of David, just as the scriptures indicate.

Here

They should be looking in the City of David about 30 feet down, below the modern surface of the city. Jerusalem was destroyed a few times and each time it was built they built ontop the previous ruins. Same thing with Megiddo. The entire reason Megiddo is on a hill now is because it was built onto of the ruins of subsequent destroyed cities over the millenia. If they want to find David's real tomb they need to excavate about 30 feet down under the rubble of the last few destructions of the city. This is also why the muslim Wakf is digging 30 feet under the Temple mount, to find and destroy jewish artifacts proving the temples were there because they know exactly where the ruins are located.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Tell it to the archaeologists. Maybe send a letter to Archaeologist Today and point out their blunder?

Ah, don't need to, the word will get around, and it is passing around the Internet in lots of places. There are some on ATS that like to see Ignorance Denied, and they'll talk too.

Besides, now everyone gets to see you doing these petty things with little one liner games that you always have to get into. Which tend to be against the ATS rules, but you don't seem to care about that.

We all know your game, which is if anything disproves any little bit of the Bible lore you have to make a rumble.

No different here this time. Next you'll get into these little one line things to derail the thread, or attempt to do so.


Nothing new, when someone stands in the way of your serotonin pump to the brain with those fabricated stories of Jesus died when he passed out. Drama, Drama and more drama----you feed on serotonin drama.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Be careful about charging folks for not doing homework. King David was buried in the city of David, just as the scriptures indicate.

Here

They should be looking in the City of David about 30 feet down, below the modern surface of the city. Jerusalem was destroyed a few times and each time it was built they built ontop the previous ruins. Same thing with Megiddo. The entire reason Megiddo is on a hill now is because it was built onto of the ruins of subsequent destroyed cities over the millenia. If they want to find David's real tomb they need to excavate about 30 feet down under the rubble of the last few destructions of the city. This is also why the muslim Wakf is digging 30 feet under the Temple mount, to find and destroy jewish artifacts proving the temples were there because they know exactly where the ruins are located.

edit on 28-7-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

The alledged tunnel tombs for David and family are still there, most distroyed by quarry activity to get more stones in the Roman era. If there was a big showy tomb of David there it would have been found long time ago, or pilfered a long time ago.

Now upstanding Jewish fella was going to stand around and let that happen. If the tomb every were there, they would go move it as the did the ark to keep all the special things from being taken away.


More than likely though, the real tomb complex is underground near that area on Mt. Zion called the tradiational site, they just need to look down there to the limestone caves all under that area.

reply to post by MagnumOpus

More than likely though, the real tomb complex is underground near that area on Mt. Zion called the tradiational site, they just need to look down there to the limestone caves all under that area.

The tunnels under Jerusalem extend for several miles in every direction, not just under Mt. Moriah. Most of those caves haven't even been fully explored at least by modern people, and it's so vast down there you'd run out of torchlight before you could find anything in ancient times so chances of looting are very miniscule. It's thought by some archeaologists that Jeremiah took the Ark down into those caves, because the Babylonians built a siege wall around Jerusalem so no one could escape. The romans built another siegewall around the same location the Babylonians did when Titus sacked Jerusalem.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


Actually, modern archaeology has CONFIRMED the biblical account over 12th century folklore and tradition. David's tomb was discovered in the past century when the ancient City of David was discovered. As well as his former 7 story home. He was found in a tomb buried with his forefathers. The current understanding is the person now occupying the traditional Kind David site is Manasseh.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

Actually, modern archaeology has CONFIRMED the biblical account over 12th century folklore and tradition. David's tomb was discovered in the past century when the ancient City of David was discovered. As well as his former 7 story home. He was found in a tomb buried with his forefathers. The current understanding is the person now occupying the traditional Kind David site is Manasseh.

Then cite the archiologists and their report and list the URL for the King David 7 story house and the tomb with all the forefathers.

Show the photos and the tomb.

reply to post by MagnumOpus


It's called the "T1 site" by archaeologists. (Tomb 1). And not finding archived photos of the dig, maybe you can have better luck:

BAR magazine, Jan/Feb 1995, "Is this King David's Tomb?", p. 63

Also see: ou.org

Archaeologists, doubting the Mount Zion location and favouring the biblical account, have since the early 20th century sought the actual tomb in the City of David area. In 1913, Raymond Weill found eight elaborate tombs at the south of the City of David, [5] which archaeologists have subsequently interpreted as strong candidates for the burial locations of the former kings of the city; [6] Hershel Shanks, for example, argues that the most ornate of these (officially labelled T1) is precisely where one would expect to find the burial site mentioned in the Bible. [7] Among those who agree with the academic and archaeological assessment of the Mount Zion site, some [who?] believe it actually is the tomb of a later king, possibly Manasseh, who is described in the Hebrew Bible as being buried in the Garden of the King rather than in the City of David like his predecessors.

Wiki. ~ King David's Tomb

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

It's called the "T1 site" by archaeologists. (Tomb 1). And not finding archived photos of the dig, maybe you can have better luck:

BAR magazine, Jan/Feb 1995, "Is this King David's Tomb?", p. 63

Sounds like you failed to notice that question mark on the BAR article. Plus, nobody has found proof, just conjectures and postulations

Everyone has seen the tunnel tomb theme:

www.biblesearchers.com...

Today, however, it is no longer accepted, especially since no other evidence has been found to confirm that they belong to the Israelite period”

holylandphotos.org...,2,6,19,93&img=IJOTCD03

"http://holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=1,2,6,19,93&img=IJOTCD03"

As one might note----there don't appear to be any remains there in any of these studies of the tunnel tombs at Ir David.

So, you fail to make your case. There is basically nothing there but tunnels, and T1 is highly affected with quarry work.


Which means, just where are Davids remains, and his relatives, and though that area might have been used, at one time, when the temple terraces and palaces were above the Gaphon Spring, it has not been used in a long time due to quarry activity there. Like the ruins for terrace zone for the temple is still there, the area of the temple is long gone and so as with the contents for the tunnel tombs, if they ever were tombs. The Solomon's temple was not where Herod's temple was located, as Soloman's was right over Gophon Spring, and not that large an area, but built up in height. The need for height was almost like a mini-tower of Nimrod theme.

The original tombs were moved to safer areas by the times of Herod and his raiding the tombs for more money occured there, not at Ir David. The Harod tomb raid were done in the Essene area, with little doubt, making the model accurate.

Just like the suggested tunnel tombs over in Ir David were several and contained family, so must the new area that houses all these remains be large and underground in similar limestone areas, which the Harod monument was built over. More than likely the orginal tombs were secretly moved to some limestone caves over on Mt. Zion.

Herod was one odd person, living in view of his temple in a volcanic shaped fortress. Herod had to build up a small hill to look like a small volcanic mountain. Solomon's temple mount did some of the same with the terrace height build ups.

www.biblewalks.com...

One of your constant problems is always trying to prove the bible holds true, when things change, and you can't seem to change. The changes were the temple area of Solomon is no more, nor is the tombs of David where they first started in the little area of Ir David. Cemetaries move, so do tombs to safer areas, where they acquire guardians to stop tomb raiders, like Herod.

Ir David is a shamable of ruins these days, not much of anything left there, not even important tombs. The Gaphon spring was the heart of the system there, but new waters were found and the temple site moved from that of Solomon's, to the wide and flat area of Herod's.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by MagnumOpus

 

It's called the "T1 site" by archaeologists. (Tomb 1). And not finding archived photos of the dig, maybe you can have better luck:

BAR magazine, Jan/Feb 1995, "Is this King David's Tomb?", p. 63

Also see: ou.org

Archaeologists, doubting the Mount Zion location and favouring the biblical account, have since the early 20th century sought the actual tomb in the City of David area. In 1913, Raymond Weill found eight elaborate tombs at the south of the City of David, [5] which archaeologists have subsequently interpreted as strong candidates for the burial locations of the former kings of the city; [6] Hershel Shanks, for example, argues that the most ornate of these (officially labelled T1) is precisely where one would expect to find the burial site mentioned in the Bible. [7] Among those who agree with the academic and archaeological assessment of the Mount Zion site, some [who?] believe it actually is the tomb of a later king, possibly Manasseh, who is described in the Hebrew Bible as being buried in the Garden of the King rather than in the City of David like his predecessors.

Wiki. ~ King David's Tomb

I can think of some reasons Manasseh would have been excluded from the burial chambers of the royal family. He had Isaiah stuffed in a log and sawed in half and was responsible for the deaths of alot of his people. If this is the son of Hezekiah that is. There was more than one Manasseh.

The whole King David thing is a propaganda piece to distract from the REAL King "David", King Omri.

Watch this BBC documentary. Skip to 43 minutes in.

Well, to call this area the Tomb of David these days is rediculous, as there isn't anything there to speak about:

members.bib-arch.org...

The longest, most elaborate of the tombs, designated T1 by Weill, measures 52.5 feet long and more than 8 feet wide. The front of the tomb has been hacked away, so it is impossible to know the original appearance of the entrance. In the rear is a depression apparently for a body or for an unusually large sarcophagus or coffin. The long tunnel was later altered, presumably when the royal cemetery became crowded, and a lower-level tomb was dug directly beneath it to make room for someone who wanted to be buried near the body in the upper level. Grooves (marked in the cross-section, below, and visible in the photo, at left) were carved into the walls of the original tomb to hold arched supports for a floor, which separated the two levels. In front of the tomb, steps led down to a lower tomb chamber. An entrance to still another tomb chamber (the stone outcrop beside T1’s entrance in the photo) lies to the right.

There are two detailed diagrams for the T1 area, and one can't say if it were some tomb or a place to store wine or supplies in the cool of a tunnel.

This area sits over the Gaphon Spring and it would have issues of contamination of the spring, which would not be good for a tomb purpose.

All the temple mount over this area was burned down, knocked down, and likely all these tombs were hit hard also.

This whole area was wipped out about as bad as Nimrod's tower was destroyed to tiny traces left.

Getting back to the theme of this model for the City of Jerusalem in the times of Jesus, other issues begin to show up besides the monument for the Tomb of David.

The history for the area of Jeruslam tells that the Fort Antonia was nearly as large as the city of Jerusalem and the temple area was only 1/4 the size of the forth. So, this model appears to have some gross errors of judgement in its associations. It appears this little Ft. Antonia on the model was never there, and the large walled in area was Ft. Antonia, complete with large sisterns under the south-east end of the fort that the Templars used to stable their horses. One would think the Templars would not be trying to mess up the temple grounds with horse manure and such, if that were really the temple area.


What one finds is the real temple area just isn't there any more and it was South of the Solomon stables and the mosque built on the south end of Ft. Antonia's compound. Now, there is a road and a parking lot running over the super sacred old temple area and the ruins are under that area. So, all this western wall worship area is a bogus account of this serious flaw in the geography of the region.

Herod built most of the Roman Fort's walls, so the western wall has the Herod type markings on the stones, and the Fort was named after Herod's best friend Mark Antony.


The real temple area was just above the palace of David in Ir David, which is where David parked the tabernackle on top of the area for the Gihon Spring. Gihon Spring supplied water for the Garden of the Kings down in the valley below, and also water for the temple priests and the water gate was in this area.


Once one can more correctly account for this model getting the area for the temple grounds mixed up with the huge area needed for Fort Antonia, then the scale for things becomes much more valid and correct.

This model appears to attempt to save some face for the Jewish temple in telling that it was not completely destroyed, when in fact it was destoryed to the very dirt below its foundations and only rubble remained after the Roman quest for all the melted gold under the temple's area.

But, their does appear to be some good point in the model, as it would be obvious that the Jewish had much time to react to the Babylon attack on the city and move such things as the temple artifacts down into the caves of the springs well under the temple mount, and also to move the Kings tombs and their wealth to other limestone cave areas to the West of the Temple area.

The real question then becomes just how much of these changes did the Templars spot in digging for the truth on the area, and if they find the Mt. Zion relocated tombs of the Kings and their wealth, did they again move it to the regions of France and the story for another cave to hide the tombs and the wealth began there.

There is much evidence of extensive caves under the temple mount that are associated with the karst limestone spring water from the Gihon Spring, and even the temple priest in need of these waters for the rituals and their baths.

And the real history for Jeruslam appears to lie below the surface of this model in the cave systems associated with Solomons Quarry, the Giphon Spring area gate between the gates, and the karst limestone below this Tomb of David Monument that has the rest of the story for where the Kings were moved and those in persuits or sequesting that wealth of artifacts and gold.

The Monument for the tomb of David in the model follows that for a tomb in the Kidron Valley, called that of St. Zacharia

www.atlastours.net...

The tomb known as the Pillar of Absalom, with its cone-shaped roof, the Tomb of Jehoshaphat, that of St. Zacharia, in the shape of a pyramid, and that of St. James should also be mentioned.