Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > History of Judah and Israel      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 14
History of Judah and IsraelPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)


Well, the only place to find such bricks would be below the Dome of the Rock, at the same level as the excavated lower Western Wall, which is several metres down. Call me when Finklestein has dug several metres below the Dome of the Rock, and found no bricks.


No bricks have been found I'm sure that if they ever dig there and find no bricks you'll come up with an excuse for that. You've got some old documents that say there was a Temple and that's all that matters to you. Anything that disagrees with those documents will be dismissed because we all know that people never lie for religious reasons.







However, from what I understand, historical evidence seems to show the opposite. Perhaps you can cite the source that found the document at Tel-Dan that says that King Ahab built the Temple?

What evidence, besides the Bible, do you have that indicates that Solomon's Temple existed?

That is NOT an answer to my question. So you are being evasive. I have to wonder why.


I never claimed that Ahab built the First Temple so it's hardly my job to provide evidence that he did. Once you find some evidence that the First Temple existed then we can discuss who built it.



But look at themadfiddler's post in msg 24, if you are interested.


I'm still reading through the links. Until then, I have no opinion either way on what they say.



If I was willing to accept claims as yours without solid proof


You should apply that standard to your religious beliefs, especially as they relate to history. You've accepted your religion's claims without the slightest bit of evidence, expect others to prove you wrong, and reject that proof out of hand.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 15
view profile
History
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/16/2008 5:55:14 PM

No bricks have been found
That is a massive claim, that could only be substantiated if someone actually dug up the Dome of the Rock. I thought that since you claimed it, you might have a source, so I thought I'd google it. Look what I found:
Tablet could prove temple of Solomon really existed

By Alan Philps in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 7:43pm GMT 17/01/2003

The appearance of an inscribed stone tablet in Jerusalem has sharply divided Israeli experts, who say it is either the most sensational archaeological discovery in the Holy Land since the Dead Sea Scrolls or an ingenious fraud.

The tablet contains 15 lines of text, in which King Jehoash, who ruled in the 9th century BC, records how he repaired the temple, an event related in the Second Book of Kings in the Old Testament.

If proved genuine it would be the first independent proof of the existence of Solomon's temple, and provide the first incontrovertible physical proof of the biblical narrative. But the origins of the tablet are murky. It was not found in an archaeological dig and no one is saying where it came from.
advertisement

It was first offered for sale - it could be worth millions of pounds - to the Israel Museum, but experts there were uncertain of its origins. But 10 months of tests by Israel Geological Institute have been unable to fault the tablet.

The inscription appears to be some 2,500 years old, to judge by the patina, and experts suppose that it stood in the temple until the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BC, after which the tablet was covered in dirt and rubble.
...
Supporters of the tablet's authenticity believe that it was unearthed during Palestinian excavations on the Temple Mount - the site of the Second Temple destroyed by Romans in 70 AD - which is now occupied by the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/07/israel.travelnews

However, this is now considered a forgery by many, for the reasons that the script should have been written perfectly, and that it should not have contained any gold in the lettering, because the Babylonians took all the gold. However, if that was true, then either the very rock should have been smashed for the gold, or someone would have had to sit there for ages carving the gold bits out, and would it really have been worth the effort? My mother used to work for a gold dealer, and what they used to do was just allow the gold shavings to fall to the floor. Under the floor there would be layers to catch the gold, and every month they would collect the shavings. But they didn't treat every slight shaving as though it was thousands, because it wasn't.

So I have to wonder at the logic of this.

That is without the thermal imaging mentioned by themadfiddler, although all I've found on that was that experts in thermal imaging brought their equipment from the US to Israel at great expense, and were turned back at the last minute by the police due to the protest of the Moslems, who apparently also are of the opinion that the Temple never existed. You have to wonder why they had such a problem, since the imaging equipment would have shown the truth.

I'm sure that if they ever dig there and find no bricks you'll come up with an excuse for that. You've got some old documents that say there was a Temple and that's all that matters to you. Anything that disagrees with those documents will be dismissed because we all know that people never lie for religious reasons.
It would be nice to live in a world where scientists never lie, but we know that scientists have lied, like Jan Henrik Schön and others. So we cannot assume that just because someone claims to follow science, that he is telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Further, it would be nice to live in a world where everything that was claimed about religion that was negative, was known to be true, and that nothing negative that was ever claimed about religion turned out to be false, but we know that wasn't true either, because of the Myth of the Flat Earth, spread by Antoine-Jean Letronne, who was an academic and anti-religious. So we cannot rely on people who claim anything negative about religion either, without substantial proof. As I have already explained, many non-religious Jews have an axe to grind against religion, especially Israelis or Jews who learned in Israeli State establiments, as the state had a covert anti-religious stand for many years. This is not so surprising if you know Jews intimately, as most Jews tend to combine their Jewishness with Judaism, so non-religious Jews tend to be in conflict with their identity. If their Judaism is not real, then their Jewishness comes into question, and they don't like that. But if their Jewishness is factual, then Judaism is factual, and so is their requirement to follow Judaism, and they don't like that either. So they tend to try and claim that they are Jewish and entitled to the Holy Land and to follow all the traditions of Judaism that they personally enjoy, but not to follow the requirements of the religion. However, the traditions of Judaism that they personally enjoy will differ from non-religious Jew to non-religious Jew, so there is no real consensus on what is real and what is not, and if you collected every non-religious Jew together, you will just have a mish-mash of opinions that all contradict each other. But very few Jews agree to give up their Jewish identity entirely, as you suggest, and given that Finklestein still teaches in Bar-Ilan, I believe that he is in conflict too. I really don't know if you've ever encountered a conflicted Christian, but most intelligent non-religious Jews are very conflicted, and once you've spent enough time to really get to know them, you see a self-contradictory irony both in their beliefs and in their actions.

I never claimed that Ahab built the First Temple so it's hardly my job to provide evidence that he did. Once you find some evidence that the First Temple existed then we can discuss who built it.
You seem to think that I have any burden of proof to convince you of something, as if your opinion holds any weight with me whatsoever just because you said it. I don't know you. I've read what you wrote, and found it very weak in evidence. Your claims are on the basis of someone else, just because he has a few letters after his name, and that alone doesn't make him authoritative, especially when he was trained and is paid by a university that was built by a state with about as much confirmation bias in the subject as a professor of Yale would have to claim that Al-Quaeda were not in the wrong for bombing 9/11. This I unequivocally state, because it's part of my family history, that we have been subjected to abominable anti-religious abuse at the direct hands of that state.

You should apply that standard to your religious beliefs, especially as they relate to history. You've accepted your religion's claims without the slightest bit of evidence, expect others to prove you wrong, and reject that proof out of hand.
You have just made a massive claim, when you don't know me, which is 100% false, which no reasonable person could ever make. For this reason, I conclude that you are making untenable assumptions about me in order to support your personal goals, and therefore any information you present would have this same confirmation bias. If you want me to ever treat anything you post again to not be full of such bias, then you'd better get someone to agree that you are not making completely unfair assumptions about me, and that person would have to be someone who I don't believe would side with you because they have an axe to grind too.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 16
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/16/2008 6:31:20 PM


You have just made a massive claim, when you don't know me, which is 100% false, which no reasonable person could ever make.


Your own words condemn you. Your best evidence for the existence of the First Temple is a tablet that no one knows where it came from and that's probably a forgery. Yet you believe. Fervently.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/17/2008 5:56:43 AM

Your own words condemn you. Your best evidence for the existence of the First Temple is a tablet that no one knows where it came from and that's probably a forgery. Yet you believe. Fervently.
This is just something I found in 5 minutes, and I wasn't even looking for it. I was only looking for evidence that digs had been done on the Temple Mount and found nothing. I've never put my own reasoning for the existence of Soloman's Temple. I don't expect others to accept my reasons, as they would logically only apply to me, as they are based on my own experiences, and I cannot accept others to accept anything based on experiences that they haven't had.

Anyway, in the pages that I've seen on it, all I have seen is that some academics have claimed it was a forgery, but all of those academics listed have the same affiliations to Israeli universities as Finkelstein does.

But it is your beliefs that are fervent. You are quoting someone who has very strong attachments to universities that are run by a known very anti-religious source. If you have any interest in studying the history of the land and of Jews in general, then I suggest that you read up o the history of the Mapam party, on their beliefs, on how the members of the Mapam party traced their roots to the German Reform Movement, and how Israel was affected as a result.

I'll just quote a couple of things:
In the prestate period, the civil religion of Jewish society was generally socialist, that is, Labor Zionism. Labor Zionists were hostile to much of traditional Jewish life, to the concept of exile, and to what they viewed as the cultural obscurantism of traditional Jews. They actively rejected Orthodoxy in religion and considered it to be a key reason for the inertia and lack of modernity of exiled Jews. Labor Zionists sought to reconstitute a revolutionary new form of Jewish person in a radically new kind of society.

After 1948, however, new problems faced Israeli society--not only military and economic problems, but also the massive immigration of Jews and their assimilation. First came the remnants of East and Central European Jewry from the detention and displaced-persons camps; then came Jews from Africa and Asia. Social integration and solidarity were essential to successful assimilation, yet Labor Zionism neither appealed to nor united many sectors of the new society. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s--roughly the period of Ben-Gurion's preeminence--a civil religion was fashioned by some factions of the political elite (led by Ben-Gurion himself), which sought to stress the new Israeli state as the object of ultimate value.

Israelis have called this the period of mamlakhtiyut or statism. The Jewish Bible was the key text and symbol, and secular youths studied parts of it as the Jewish nation's history and cultural heritage. Religious holidays, such as Hanukkah and Passover, or Pesach, were reinterpreted to emphasize nationalist and liberation themes, and Independence Day was promoted as a holiday of stature equal to the old religious holidays. The archaeology of the Holy Land, particularly during the Israelite (post-Joshua) period, became a national obsession, first because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and later because of Yigal Yadin's excavations at Massada (a site of fierce Jewish resistance to the Romans after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.). At the same time, the two thousand years of Jewish history that followed the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish cultural life in the various diasporas (Ashkenazi as well as Sephardi), and Jewish religion of the postbiblical eras (rabbinic Judaism, exemplified in the Talmud) were rejected or ignored.
http://countrystudies.us/israel/44.htm

This sort of anti-religious bias is well-known in Israel. One example is how the various migrations of religious Sephardi Jews (Jews from North Africa, the Middle East, and India) were treated. For many years, the European Zionists who filled the Mapam party and controlled the government for many decades, regarded these Jews as no different than the way African Americans were treated prior to the 1960s. My mother was there from 1960-1964, and before she was going to go on a date with my father, who was Moroccan, she was advised not to date him, due to this stigma. Even in the 1980s, my sister was a school-kid in the UK, and one day, on the bus, another Jewish girl called her a WOG, which is a racial insult, because she is Sephardi, like myself. Even today, I know one person who thinks it's funny to insult me on account of my Moroccan heritage, and this person spent his teens and 20s growing up in Israeli society. Racism is still rife in Israel.

Here is a letter on the subject of one of the indignities suffered upon Sephardi Jews by the state: http://www.geocities.com/stop_abuse.geo/ymA.htm
I won't quote from it, because it is something I personally consider horrific.

You may like to think stuff like this happened only to African Americans, and only from religious people, such as those found in the Bible Belt, but it happened to Sephardi Jews, from the anti-religious.

Even when I was there in 88-92, a Rabbi who was a teacher of mine was invited to a ceremony of ritual circumcision on the child of a man who lived in a secular kibbutz. The kibbutz declared that they didn't want it on the premises, so he ended up arranging for it to be done outside the gates of the kibbutz. The mohel (expert in ritual circumcision), who has to be expert in the health risks, declared that it wasn't a problem doing that in the outside. But that area of Israel is quite dusty, because it is near the coast. Now, I ask you, if you were running that kibbutz, even if you didn't agree with circumcision, and you banned circumcision from your kibbutz, if a circumcision was going to happen right outside the gates, in the open air, wouldn't you invite the person to have that circumcision in a building on the kibbutz, just so the child is exposed to as few germs as possible? Wouldn't you believe that a reasonable form of behaviour for any person of compassion and sense? I would. But that didn't happen.

I realise that some of this is anecdotal, but this kind of anti-religious sentiment isn't just one experience. I experienced it many times, so much so, that it's a given in Israel for most Jews, who've lived there amongst other Jews for years. For the anti-religious, religion is the devil, and must be destroyed, and if religious people want to defend it, well that's just "their own fault". From the religious POV, there is still a lot of intolerance towards religion, and a lot of it defies reason and sense.

That is my main problem with your source in the first place. You are quoting someone who has a serious level of bias in the subject.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 18
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/17/2008 7:51:04 AM


That is my main problem with your source in the first place. You are quoting someone who has a serious level of bias in the subject.


So, your evidence for the First Temple is the assignment of guilt by association and then committing the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well.



This is just something I found in 5 minutes, and I wasn't even looking for it. I was only looking for evidence that digs had been done on the Temple Mount and found nothing. I've never put my own reasoning for the existence of Soloman's Temple. I don't expect others to accept my reasons, as they would logically only apply to me, as they are based on my own experiences, and I cannot accept others to accept anything based on experiences that they haven't had.


Thanks for admitting that your reasons for believing in the First Temple are not based on evidence.

Next up, what's the evidence for the existence of the united monarchy of Israel and Judah under David?
 E.Kyro
Joined: 10/3/2005
Msg: 19
view profile
History
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/17/2008 10:14:00 AM
There is more evidence for the First Temple:


Archaeologists, working from the middle 1800s, established the foundations of the second and third Temples (those of Zerubbabel and Herod), but it was not until 1973 that a concerted attempt was made to reveal the first House of the Lord - the Temple of King Solomon. The archaeological project was led by Prof. Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University, with field architect Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, who wrote up the account for the Biblical Archaeology Society.

With the aid of records from the Greek historian, Strabo (64 BC - AD 21), the team worked on site for five years, making many new discoveries, among which (at the lowest course level) were the original footings of King Solomon's Temple, with masonry quite different to that of the later periods. Also, to their astonishment, in the floor of the Holy of Holies above was the carved rectangular depression (48 inches by 31 inches), where the Ark of the Covenant once stood (1-Kings 8:6).

It transpired that the Solomonid footings had actually been logged some time previously by the Palestine Exploration Fund, but the information had not become widely known.




Ostracons and the Pomegranate

There are a few archaeologically discovered artifacts from the first Temple's operative era which make specific reference to Solomon's House of the Lord. One of these is known as the Temple Ostracon, which resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. This pottery shard from about 800 BC (in the Jerusalem reign of King Joash of Judah) clearly mentions, in old Hebrew, the Temple of the 'Bayit Yahweh' - the Jerusalem House of the Lord.

Another ostracon referenced by the Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 1997) is a tax receipt written on a clay tablet in respect of a subscription of 3 shekels to the House of the Lord. It comes from much the same period as the Temple Ostracon, when the Jewish people were obliged to contribute towards the House of Yahweh's infrastructure by way of a Temple tax.

A particularly interesting artifact from the Solomon Temple reign of King Uzziah of Judah, c. 750 BC, is a small ivory pomegranate - vase shaped with a long neck and petals. Around its shoulder, in an early Hebrew script, is inscribed "Sacred donation for the priests of the House of the Lord ". Like the Temple Ostracon and the David Tablet, this item is also held at the Israel Museum.
 TheLimey
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 20
view profile
History
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 3/17/2008 12:11:01 PM

For the anti-religious, religion is the devil, and must be destroyed, and if religious people want to defend it, well that's just "their own fault". From the religious POV, there is still a lot of intolerance towards religion, and a lot of it defies reason and sense.

From my point of view I wouldn't say I suffer from intolerance of religion. What I "suffer" from is intolerence of people wilfully choosing to be ignorant.
People get all this superstitious BS because they can't expaln something & jump at "the Sky Fairy must have done it" as the simplest explanation.
"defies reason & sense" ?? Hello? You just described reliogion, not *anti religion" as you call it..
Knowledge continues to erode irrational beliefs & maybe one day everyone will wake up, hopefully before *Cult A* destroys *Cult B* & wipes out everyone else into the bargain.

We have the leader of arguably the most powerful nation on Earth claiming he gets guidance from voices he hears.. And this doesn't make people who hear this say "WTF did he just say?? fetch the Thorazine!!"
I have NO problem with every christian & every muslim killing each other off. At least then the rest of us can get on with improving the human race & living in peace. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that both sides can wipe each off the planet without harming the rest of us.... & you just know they are going to try anyway...
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 21
view profile
History
History of Judah and Israel
Posted: 12/13/2009 10:01:54 AM
RE Msg: 30 by CountIbli:

That is my main problem with your source in the first place. You are quoting someone who has a serious level of bias in the subject.
So, your evidence for the First Temple is the assignment of guilt by association and then committing the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well.
My problem, is that you are deliberately cherry-picking sources that reject views that disagree with your personal beliefs, even if they have a huge amount of cognitive bias. In that way, you are using the fallacy of Poisoning the Well to give you reason to reject a part of history.


This is just something I found in 5 minutes, and I wasn't even looking for it. I was only looking for evidence that digs had been done on the Temple Mount and found nothing. I've never put my own reasoning for the existence of Soloman's Temple. I don't expect others to accept my reasons, as they would logically only apply to me, as they are based on my own experiences, and I cannot accept others to accept anything based on experiences that they haven't had.
Thanks for admitting that your reasons for believing in the First Temple are not based on evidence.
You didn't read what I wrote. I'm not a missionary. I am not going to demand that you share my beliefs. Thus, I don't want to present solid reasons to persuade you to share my beliefs.

But if you are trying to convince others of your beliefs, then you are trying to convert others to your beliefs, and you are missionising.

RE Msg: 32 by TheLimey:
From my point of view I wouldn't say I suffer from intolerance of religion. What I "suffer" from is intolerence of people wilfully choosing to be ignorant.
People get all this superstitious BS because they can't expaln something & jump at "the Sky Fairy must have done it" as the simplest explanation.
"defies reason & sense" ?? Hello? You just described reliogion, not *anti religion" as you call it..
Knowledge continues to erode irrational beliefs & maybe one day everyone will wake up, hopefully before *Cult A* destroys *Cult B* & wipes out everyone else into the bargain.
I totally understand how you feel. I grew up with a great many non-religious people, who used to argue that Arabs were warmongers who must be killed or controlled, and that poor people were incapable of becoming anything other than criminals. I argued against them. They just said that I was ignorant, and they saw no reason to tolerate my views. You seem to take the same stand as they did, just about different things.

We have the leader of arguably the most powerful nation on Earth claiming he gets guidance from voices he hears.. And this doesn't make people who hear this say "WTF did he just say?? fetch the Thorazine!!"
No-one in the UK that I have EVER met, or come across, believes that he really hears such voices, as we in the UK know that most politicians lie, and lie often, and that to be a politician, one must be quite smart to get to the top. It is quite possible that such claims are a ruse, to make people think Bush is crazy, and so not wonder at what his plans were if he were sane.

There is a precedent. In the UK, John Major was PM, the head of the country. He appeared to be very boring and very ineffectual. It was later revealed that he put into place many crafty operations, and he used his seeming dimwittedness as a smokescreen to throw people off. It worked, incredibly well. Everyone got bored with Major, and no-one batted an eyelid at what he did.

Bush has managed to accomplish the same. He's done what people like Mugabe have done. We blame Mugabe for what he has done. But Bush is just assumed to be too incompetent to have known what he was doing. In this way, Bush had ensured that he got a "carte blanche" to do whatever he wanted.

I have NO problem with every christian & every muslim killing each other off. At least then the rest of us can get on with improving the human race & living in peace. The problem is that it's highly unlikely that both sides can wipe each off the planet without harming the rest of us.... & you just know they are going to try anyway...
It wouldn't happen either way. There have been several states which were officially atheistic. But they all seem to have an appalling record of abuses of human rights. Atheistic states have a very worrying track record.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > History of Judah and Israel