Archaeologists claim to have found King David's palace in Israel

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw

Originally posted by geobro
the travelling who ????? the brits are the real tribe not a bunch of kzars a pict i .

and the band played believe it it if you like

Yes the brits are but it goes back to celts and germanic pagan druids.

Don't forget, that the white pagan celts lived around that area of judea. Wearing foil death masks.

edit on 23-7-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)

It seems I read a story awhile back that the stone that they say in the one that Isaac made a pillow out of that the queens throne is on top of is rock that came from Scotland. Not limestone from Israel.

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw

Originally posted by geobro
the travelling who ????? the brits are the real tribe not a bunch of kzars a pict i .

and the band played believe it it if you like

Yes the brits are but it goes back to celts and germanic pagan druids.

Don't forget, that the white pagan celts lived around that area of judea. Wearing foil death masks.

edit on 23-7-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)

It seems I read a story awhile back that the stone that they say in the one that Isaac made a pillow out of that the queens throne is on top of is rock that came from Scotland. Not limestone from Israel.

yes it is sandstone it was stolen in 1950 and broken in two it was not the original it was xrayd and had a note in it it came back to scotland in 1999 or 2000 but the real one is black and never left . one of the people who stole it just died 2 weeks ago

Originally posted by benrl

A team of Israeli archaeologists believes it has discovered the ruins of a palace belonging to the biblical King David, but other Israeli experts dispute the claim. Archaeologists from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israel's Antiquities Authority said their find, a large fortified complex west of Jerusalem at a site called Khirbet Qeiyafa , is the first palace of the biblical king ever to be discovered.

Archaeologists claim to have found King David's palace in Israel

Well there appears to still be questions of the validity of the find if it is or not, guess time will tell.

Interesting for a book that many consider allegorical often leads to real locations and people being found to have existed.

edit on 22-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

i think you are confused about what people find allegorical in the biblical texts, the books can contain real history and still be allegorical at least when it comes to god and other supernatural stuff.

there is lots of stuff archaeologists have found that at least in some ways was found in the bible.
thing is a lot of the bible tends to be written to reflect the beliefs of the authors, so it isn't unbiased history and is often times written to create a story to show the power of god.
exodus does contain history, but it's written in such a way that the history is drown out by the morality play the author wanted to tell the reader that people doubted the history.
its why for at least a century or so people doubted everything in the bible, because it was tied so closely to the stories only meant for believers.

i don't really see why having stories with real people or locations is that amazing, historical fiction contains real people and places, comic books do too, most fiction often does.
that says nothing about the other stuff, god and the supernatural.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post.

Very likely.

Why would he write "Palestine" instead of "Israel"?

Because Israel in ancient times was a nation, not a location, and Hebrew dominance of the area of which we speak was at best intermittent. The locale is widely known to historians and geographers as Palestine, as in fact it has been since Greek and Roman times.

Also, 'Palestine' is really the same word as 'Philistine' ('Fila'stin' in Arabic), a nation who have a somewhat better claim to be the indigenous inhabitants of the area than the Hebrews do.

There has never actually been a country, state or place named Palestine.

Perhaps not in the Right Wing Bible Believers' History Book.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Astyanax

 

By the way, exactly which Biblical stories are supported by archaeological evidence?

The construction of Hezekiah tunnel.

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the faithful transmission of the Masoretic Text.

The Tel Dan Stele, according to some, points to the existance of David or at the very least a royal house in Israel.

Shisak's invasion of Israel during the reign of Rehoboam.

Trade between Israel and Sheba.

The reigns of Omri, Ahab, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Ahaz, Jeroboam II, and Jehoiachin.

The existence of a people called the Hittites.

The existence of Roman governors and proconsuls.

nothing about those things proves all the content of the bible is history or happened.
by that kind of logic spider man exists because the comic took place in new york and they had 9/11 happen in the comic.

also the DDS does not confirm the faithful transmission of the masoretic text, there are quite a few differences, such as the name of god.

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw

Originally posted by geobro
the travelling who ????? the brits are the real tribe not a bunch of kzars a pict i .

and the band played believe it it if you like

Yes the brits are but it goes back to celts and germanic pagan druids.

Don't forget, that the white pagan celts lived around that area of judea. Wearing foil death masks.

edit on 23-7-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)

uh there were no germanic druids, druids are celtic, not germanic.

what the heck are you talking about? celts never lived in israel, at most maybe rome stationed celts there around the 2-3 century ad but they never lived there.
the phoneticians might have traded with celtic peoples but that was about it.

Originally posted by benrl

A team of Israeli archaeologists believes it has discovered the ruins of a palace belonging to the biblical King David, but other Israeli experts dispute the claim. Archaeologists from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israel's Antiquities Authority said their find, a large fortified complex west of Jerusalem at a site called Khirbet Qeiyafa , is the first palace of the biblical king ever to be discovered.

Archaeologists claim to have found King David's palace in Israel

Well there appears to still be questions of the validity of the find if it is or not, guess time will tell.

Interesting for a book that many consider allegorical often leads to real locations and people being found to have existed.

edit on 22-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

- i say its a Ritual of Association benzrl

too "coincidental", imo, that the same time that prince is born
[ two weeks before, or just presented yesterday ] ,
they announce the ' king david find '

subliminal association
that is their goal

- ofcourse yes i can be wrong.
But problem is, i dont trust their methods, nor ' coincidences', at ALL.

Originally posted by guitarplayer

It seems I read a story awhile back that the stone that they say in the one that Isaac made a pillow out of that the queens throne is on top of is rock that came from Scotland. Not limestone from Israel.

you mean the stone of scone and the legends say it was the stone used by jacob as a pillow when he received a vision from god and blessed it.

the stories say that it was brought to ireland by jeremiah and used by the kings of ireland when crowning their king until people transported it to scotland.
it came from scotland because it's from scotland, it isn't anything more than a rock, do you think there isn't lime stone in scotland or sandstone in israel?

dp.

reply to post by benrl


I'm so strung out on trusting anything I hear or read anymore. I don't even
want to say great find or there's more proof the Bible knows what it's talk'in about.
For all I know they found an ancient outhouse.
This story will just fade away and people will barely remember anything about it
most likely. They have the waters thick with mud, so no one can ever draw
a difinitive conclusion, about anything ever. So let that be your biggest clue.
Completely stupid, when you really think about how jacked up everything is.
But I never needed proof any way. It's called faith.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by jeramie
I like how people desperately try to come up with some kind of reasoning as to why it "just can't be" when something which further confirms the Bible is found. It's almost comical the lengths some will go just to avoid admitting that the Word of God is correct.

Very interesting. Another one to add to the vast list of biblical archaeological finds!

Finding archeology that supports a historical narrative doesn't mean it supports a supernatural narrative also. The dude who wrote the Bible books live at that time or had oral traditions/texts to help them recall, it would be odd if they didn't known what was going on in the real world around them.

Example. I can write about todays world where I live in the Pacific Northwest, I can mention Seatle, the Governor of Oregon, etc, this is historic information but does that add credence to my claim that I worship a large purple sea slug named Stanley who created the world and has really, really bad communication skills, changes his mind a lot and seems generally confused?

No it does not, lol

edit on 23/7/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Star date 2114. I just came across this hard drive.
The purple slug Stanley is well understood but....
Where is this mythical city "Seatle" Hanslume speaks of?

reply to post by Astyanax

Perhaps not in the Right Wing Bible Believers' History Book.

Hmmmm, perhaps you could show me where it has been a country in YOUR propaganda filled history book?

Thought not.
Quad

reply to post by benrl
...and the nature of the responses to the OP provide an excellent example of why Biblical archaeology is so contentious, and as such, demands a higher standard of proof.

Originally posted by jeramie
I like how people desperately try to come up with some kind of reasoning as to why it "just can't be" when something which further confirms the Bible is found. It's almost comical the lengths some will go just to avoid admitting that the Word of God is correct.

Very interesting. Another one to add to the vast list of biblical archaeological finds!

No one in there right minds doubts the historical backdrop the bible is set against - that it holds any more validity in it's exterior concepts than a dan brown novel is yet to be proven.

Unless you really think that people in the desert spoke to glowing sky aliens just because they say so...

Originally posted by sealing

Star date 2114. I just came across this hard drive.
The purple slug Stanley is well understood but....
Where is this mythical city "Seatle" Hanslume speaks of?

Using the archaic method of terrestial determination noted below it is thought to be under a large mound known to locals as 'starbuck's place'

47°36′35″N 122°19′59″W

Originally posted by geobro

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by CrypticSouthpaw

Originally posted by geobro
the travelling who ????? the brits are the real tribe not a bunch of kzars a pict i .

and the band played believe it it if you like

Yes the brits are but it goes back to celts and germanic pagan druids.

Don't forget, that the white pagan celts lived around that area of judea. Wearing foil death masks.

edit on 23-7-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)

It seems I read a story awhile back that the stone that they say in the one that Isaac made a pillow out of that the queens throne is on top of is rock that came from Scotland. Not limestone from Israel.

yes it is sandstone it was stolen in 1950 and broken in two it was not the original it was xrayd and had a note in it it came back to scotland in 1999 or 2000 but the real one is black and never left . one of the people who stole it just died 2 weeks ago

Neither one is the reported stone that Jacob used as a pillow when he wrestled with God.

reply to post by Quadrivium

I never said it was a country – though it all depends on how you define 'country'.

However,

Palaestina

Syria Palaestina

Palaestina Prima

Palaestina Secunda

Palestina Salutaris

And finally,

Now in the line stretching to Phoenicia from the land of the Persians the land is broad and the space abundant, but after Phoenicia this peninsula goes by the shore of our Sea along Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, where it ends; and in it there are three nations only.

– Herodotus, c.415BC

By the way, there is no mention of Israel, Jews or Hebrews in Herodotus. Now, if you will pardon the rest of us, we would like to return to the actual topic under discussion.

While this news seems interesting and are bound to make some Christian followers very happy, we need to understand that Jerusalem during his history was destroyed and build upon ruins over and over due to wars.

So every time the dig a whole in the area is a big chance that they will uncover ruins of some kind.

This will help with the tourism as those that are believers love this type of news.

reply to post by Astyanax


What about the Merenptah Stele? Merenptah's reign being from 1213 to 1203 BC. He records a military victory over Israel.

wikipedia source



"The princes are prostate, saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the nine bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered,
Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed."

reply to post by Astyanax

I think at this point you will agree that you're being a wee bit hypocritical.
First you state the following......

That's nice. I imagine most of these are fairly uncontroversial, or would be if you wrote 'Palestine' in place of 'Israel' there, and 'the existence of the people referred to in the Bible as the Hittites', since I believe they were really called something different. I was thinking more in terms of the confirmation of supernatural events mentioned in the Bible, though. 

And you then go on to say ..........

Now, if you will pardon the rest of us, we would like to return to the actual topic under discussion.

The really disturbing part is that you want proof of the validity of the Bible yet you quote Herodotus.

Grow up bro,
Quad