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.

 

3,000-year-old fragment of pottery that leading expert claims could prove that Old Testament stories

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
Just because it shows there was a king David and Solomon it hardly means the stories in the old testament is true. Other things have already proven both of these men existed but never proved the stories were true.


Didn't the Jews leave the land of Israel ?

That comes from where now?





posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


That's fine, I don't like arguing about it either. I just like to keep an open mind. If God is real, then He needs to prove it to me. Until then, I will keep my mind open to any possibility being possible (ie any religion could be true, they all could be true, they all could be false, etc). Hence I am agnostic.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
the history of archeology is littered with names of people and places the bible said existed but naysayed by skeptical experts.....only later to be proven by the bible and excavation that in fact they HAD existed.


i think there are enough stories out there about digs getting shut down and people being forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and the like to show a pattern of coverups and obfuscation by the entities that are usually at the helm or funding these various excavations. There is a version of history that needs to be kept from the masses, for political correctness and even more to make sure we humans dont know what we really are and are capable of being.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by instigatah
 


Science-with-an-agenda - always a bad idea. With all the non-disclosure forms signed, they can then proclaim that there is little archaeological evidence for the existence of Israel, Judah, etc.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Many scientist have an agenda.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I never really doubted there were Hebrews in Jerusalem back then, inscriptions found from Moabite ruins dating 200-300 years before King David mentions King Balak's encounter with the Israelites.



The Stele of Ahmose hiding in the basement of a museum in Cairo also describes the 10 plagues and the Hebrew peoples. For that matter the Ipuwer papyrus, written by an Egyptian scribe also details the 10 plagues account.

Biblical truths
edit on 1-8-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I think it is more a discription of the Hyksos invasion. You can certainly select certain phrases and compare it to the exodus but if you read it the entire document the sense is of invasion and destruction comes out.

Here is non-cherry picked translation

Link



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I think it is more a discription of the Hyksos invasion. You can certainly select certain phrases and compare it to the exodus but if you read it the entire document the sense is of invasion and destruction comes out.

Here is non-cherry picked translation

Link


According to some archeaologists, the Hyksos and the Hebrew very well could have been the same people, archeaolgical evidence indicates the Hyksos settled in Goshen just like the Hebrew. To the Egyptians back then, a bunch of starving foreigners showing up on their doorsteps looking for food would have seemed certainly like an invasion, especially since in those times it was a common occurrence to be raided by nomadic bands looking to plunder.
edit on 1-8-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I think it is more a discription of the Hyksos invasion. You can certainly select certain phrases and compare it to the exodus but if you read it the entire document the sense is of invasion and destruction comes out.

Here is non-cherry picked translation

Link


According to some archeaologists, the Hyksos and the Hebrew very well could have been the same people, archeaolgical evidence indicates the Hyksos settled in Goshen just like the Hebrew. To the Egyptians back then, a bunch of starving foreigners showing up on their doorsteps looking for food would have seemed certainly like an invasion, especially since in those times it was a common occurrence to be raided by nomadic bands looking to plunder.
edit on 1-8-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)


But the Hyksos seemed to have conquered lower Egypt and had their own Pharaohs and that isn't in the OT AFAIK

What did you think the complete document says? If I only read the cherry picked provided version I'd believe the comparison between it and the exodus story. Not cherry picked - not so much!
edit on 2/8/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
I dont see how 1 pottery shard proves anything other than people made pottery and wrote on it in ancient Hebrew.
Couldnt it have been traded or taken in a raid?
Its another piece of the puzzle but it doesnt PROVE anything



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I dont see how 1 pottery shard proves anything other than people made pottery and wrote on it in ancient Hebrew.
Couldnt it have been traded or taken in a raid?
Its another piece of the puzzle but it doesnt PROVE anything


How insightful.

I don't see how a few fragments of ancient history proves anything either. For all we know the Egyptian people completely fabricated their own history. Funny how that sort of logic doesn't go both ways...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and it'd take a mighty large pot to back up everything in the OT.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Awesome find, thanks for the post. However I don't see how this indicates that king david or solomon did in fact reign, although I don't doubt that they did.. They say that they believe that the language is a primitive version of Hebrew, thus they haven't been able to translate it.. So, how does this piece of pottery with untranslatable text prove this?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIceQueen
Awesome find, thanks for the post. However I don't see how this indicates that king david or solomon did in fact reign, although I don't doubt that they did.. They say that they believe that the language is a primitive version of Hebrew, thus they haven't been able to translate it.. So, how does this piece of pottery with untranslatable text prove this?


Those are valid questions

zeenews.india.com...


If Hebrew as a written language existed in the 10th century, as he says, the ancient Israelites were recording their history in real time as opposed to writing it down several hundred years later.

That would make the Old Testament an historical account of real-life events.


Here is another article
www.sci-news.com...




If Hebrew as a written language existed in the 10th century, as he says, the ancient Israelites were recording their history in real time as opposed to writing it down several hundred years later.


www.bayoubuzz.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I dont see how 1 pottery shard proves anything other than people made pottery and wrote on it in ancient Hebrew.
Couldnt it have been traded or taken in a raid?
Its another piece of the puzzle but it doesnt PROVE anything


How insightful.

I don't see how a few fragments of ancient history proves anything either. For all we know the Egyptian people completely fabricated their own history. Funny how that sort of logic doesn't go both ways...


Sorry but Im not sure I catch your meaning

The article refers to one piece of pottery, show me any era of Egyptian history that is based on a single pottery shard



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


" I'm only going to believe "



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



But the Hyksos seemed to have conquered lower Egypt and had their own Pharaohs and that isn't in the OT AFAIK

What did you think the complete document says? If I only read the cherry picked provided version I'd believe the comparison between it and the exodus story. Not cherry picked - not so much!



The Ipuwer papyrus does indeed describe the 10 plagues, but from the Egyptian point of view. It's natural there would be some differences otherwise you could argue collusion, to the Egyptians they were about to lose everything including their children and their lives.

I find it very interesting that the Hyksos happened to show up on the scene about the same time the Hebrews did, and also settled in Goshen at Avaris. The Hyksos were semitic peoples of an Asiatic mix. Asia in those days was not China and the rest of the Orient. In those times Asia was from Phoenicia to Turkey and likely also included some of the Hittite peoples. The Hebrews were not always slaves, that didn't occur until some time after the death of Joseph. Ruins of Israelite houses later discovered in Israel by archeaologists also match the same style and design as those found at Avaris. I also find it interesting that the Pharaoh Ahmose which can mean "brother of Moses", expelled the Hyksos around 1500 B.C. which was right around the time the Santorini volcano exploded which would explain the plague of darkness spoken of in Exodus 10 and also referred to on the Stele of Ahmose and the Ipuwer Papyrus. Archaeology does support the biblical narrative. All these occurrences happening at the same time is one hell of a leap to say mere coincidence.
edit on 2-8-2013 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


well i guess u will just have too read that new best seller,,,the Bible,,
,is God implicated?,,,is there any proof ,,that god,,existed at that time?,,,or today even,,,
God ya,,,pretty much evident in the bible,,,,
,,,gee i hope it gets better quick,,,


Am I the only one who couldn't understand a word of that? Is your keyboard broken? Please at least try to get your point across in a coherent way if you want people to take your opinions seriously.

Peace



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thundersmurf

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


well i guess u will just have too read that new best seller,,,the Bible,,
,is God implicated?,,,is there any proof ,,that god,,existed at that time?,,,or today even,,,
God ya,,,pretty much evident in the bible,,,,
,,,gee i hope it gets better quick,,,


Am I the only one who couldn't understand a word of that? Is your keyboard broken? Please at least try to get your point across in a coherent way if you want people to take your opinions seriously.

Peace


my reply too a statement made by Krazysh0t:
"pretty sure that many of the events talked about in the Bible actually happened. Whether God was involved or not"
From above quote "Whether God was involved",, simply put,is he serious?

ohhh "if you want people to take your opinions seriously.",,i could not give a rats ass.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Even if it were proven that King David and King Solomon existed, or even that Jesus Christ himself existed, that would not prove The Bible or Christianity as being true.

Has anybody heard of that movie where Abraham Lincoln is a Vampire Slayer? Does anyone think that is true?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join