NationStates Jolt Archive

See here

Does an amazing new discovery show that the Bible is supported by science?

Many archeologists are calling the latest Israeli archeological discovery “the find of the century” (Canadian Jewish News, October 20). Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archeologist, is claiming to have unearthed, in East Jerusalem, the palace of biblical King David.

King David was the 10th century b.c. poet-warrior and slayer of Goliath, whom the Bible says consolidated and expanded the ancient Israelite kingdom into a regional power. In approximately 1000 b.c., King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites (Washington Post, December 2), and subsequently made it his capital. According to the Bible, King David’s palace was partially built by workers sent to him by the Phoenician king of Tyre as a gesture of friendship, as is described in 2 Samuel 5:11.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1932

bump

The point of this article being?

The point of this article being?
Presumably it is meant to reinforce Israeli claims over East Jerusalem and to discourage Palestinian claims over it.

Does an amazing new discovery show that the Bible is supported by science?

Eehmm... that parts of the Bible are (reasonably) historically accurate or at least have a basis in truth is hardly news...

What would be news is that one could show that every part of it was true.

Eehmm... that parts of the Bible are (reasonably) historically accurate or at least have a basis in truth is hardly news...

What would be news is that one could show that every part of it was true.

Exactly.

So.... the article basically condenses down to:

1) Someone found a building.

2) It MIGHT have been an 'Israelite' building.

3) It MIGHT hav housed a heirarchical family.

4) They've actually only 'dug up' about a tenth of it, and:

5) They've still found no conclusive proof for any of articles 2 or 3... EITHER way.

And - based on this obvious multiplicity of 'evidence', they have decided it MUST be the house of "David", and that, THAT is somehow evidence of some greater biblical 'truth'....

So.... the article basically condenses down to:

1) Someone found a building.

2) It MIGHT have been an 'Israelite' building.

3) It MIGHT hav housed a heirarchical family.

4) They've actually only 'dug up' about a tenth of it, and:

5) They've still found no conclusive proof for any of articles 2 or 3... EITHER way.

And - based on this obvious multiplicity of 'evidence', they have decided it MUST be the house of "David", and that, THAT is somehow evidence of some greater biblical 'truth'....

You missed one out.:mad:

In a city which MIGHT hve housed a guy called Goliath they found a shard of pottery with markings which are similar to the word Goliath and MIGHT mean Goliath which MIGHT refer to the biblical character despite the fact that it was a common name at the time.

How could anyone doubt such evidence?:eek:

OMFG this is amazing! Maybe we can clone Goliath and Andre the Giant and have some sort of crazy death match! </NS obsession with death-matches>

OMFG this is amazing! Maybe we can clone Goliath and Andre the Giant and have some sort of crazy death match! </NS obsession with death-matches>

Oh come on, a guy who dies the moment he's hit by a pebble is hardly worthy opponent.:p

Eehmm... that parts of the Bible are (reasonably) historically accurate or at least have a basis in truth is hardly news...

What would be news is that one could show that every part of it was true.

It's just as easy to believe it's true than to believe it isn't, at least in my opinion.

It is quite well known that Kind David existed. Although his origins were likely different from canon(is that the right word?) bible.

It's just as easy to believe it's true than to believe it isn't, at least in my opinion.

Well the fact that the Egyptians failed to notice that they were enslaving a whole race, were punished by God and then lost their army and Pharoah when the Red Sea closed over them seems to be a fairly good indication that it isn't all true.

It's just as easy to believe it's true than to believe it isn't, at least in my opinion.

Easy - yes. Smart - no. If you do not see why, I have a very pretty bridge to sell to you.

See here http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=1932
Um... I'm going to have to flame "The Trumpet" a bit. The "Philidelphia Church of God" is a bunch of Nutters offshooting from Heerbert W. Armstrong's "Worldwide Church of God (http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/resrch/re_artl.htm)" (WCG) The Worldwide Church of God, formed in 1933 as the Radio Church of God by Herbert W. Armstrong. Armstrong, an Oregon advertising man, preached that Anglo-Americans were Jews, descendants of the lost “ten tribes of Israel.

The Worldwide Church of God changed its doctrine after Armstrong’s death in 1986, but more than half the membership withdrew and formed splinter groups.

Note on the Philadelphia Church of God: Simon-pure Armstrongism is being perpetuated in a very effective and broad manner by the "Philadelphia Church of God" splinter founded in 1989 and headquartered in Edmond, Oklahoma. The Oklahoma "splinter" is headed by Gerald Flurry, a devotee of Herbert Armstrong, who was "fired" by the Pasadena group "for disagreement with the new direction" taken by Armstrong's appointed successor, Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. (The Philadelphia Trumpet, 1/97, p. 17). Flurry and about a dozen others launched the Philadelphia Church of God "on the Sabbath [Sat.] of December 16, 1989 in a home," and has since risen to 6,000 members in 115 countries, presumably including many long-time followers of Armstrong who also rejected the "changes" of the Pasadena headquarters.

The Philadelphia group publishes the monthly The Philadelphia Trumpet (circulation of about 80,000), which replicates Armstrong's The Plain Truth, and True Education, a quarterly magazine for youth. Flurry regards the late founder as being the "endtime Elijah" of "Bible prophecy." Flurry is not only totally dedicated to the claims and teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, his speaking manner is very much imitative of the alleged "endtime Elijah." He alleges that the original Worldwide Church of God has now made "40 major doctrinal changes" from the "truths restored to the church through Mr. Armstrong" (TPT, 1/97, p. 18). A booklet entitled WCG Doctrinal Changes and the Tragic Results is published by the Flurry-led sect, and is being used to "recall" old Armstrongites who accept the "restored truths lost to the Church over the centuries ... restored to the Church during Mr. Armstrong's ministry" (TPT, 12/96, p. 24).

Gerald Flurry has imitated the ministry of Armstrong in other ways. Similar to the old The World Tomorrow television program, Flurry airs a weekly television program called the Key of David. "The program is broadcast to over 400 million worldwide." The Key of David program offers numerous free books on their web site. Most of these books are written by Flurry, but several are from Armstrong and Steven Flurry (Gerald Flurry's son). Flurry began republishing Armstrong's books, but was challenged in court by the WCG. A Federal court ordered Flurry to cease publication of the Armstrong material in September, 2000.

Flurry follows Armstrong's theories as closely as any of the dead leader's followers. British-Israelism, Sabbath keeping, "keeping the Ten Commandments" as a condition of salvation, baptism as a condition of salvation, and similar departures from "orthodoxy" are as much a part of "Flurryism" as "Armstrongism." Flurry remarks, "If Mr. Armstrong was right in that statement [declaring himself the "endtime Elijah"], then those words flowed right out of the mind of the living, all-powerful GOD!" (TPT, 2/97, p. 1). Flurry's own "Malachi's Message" has been used to "warn" the apostatized Armstrongites of what he calls the "Philadelphia era." (Source: Bob Ross, Pilgrim Publications, 2/97.)

Since Armstrong's death, Flurry has taught that the Bible prophesied that the WCG would change direction as it did. However, this is not to say that the truth would be lost. "If God's Church goes astray, Christ rebukes it. If they fail to repent, then He removes the lamp and raises up another Church or Work." Obviously, Flurry believes that "other church" is the Philadelphia Church of God.

In a public address, Flurry stated that Armstrong fulfilled the role depicted in Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world ..." And that the subsequent verse describes the successor to the WCG, Joseph Tkach Sr.: "so when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation ..." Tkach is standing in the holy place because he became the Pastor General of the WCG after Armstrong died. He is the abomination of desolation because he changed the doctrines that Armstrong restored.

According to Flurry, the time between Armstrong's death and Flurry's reestablishing the truth is depicted in Daniel 8. Verse 14 indicates that 2,300 evenings and mornings will pass before the sanctuary would be cleansed. After explaining that 2,300 actually refers to 1,150 days, Flurry reveals that this was the time period in between Armstrong's death and the writing of his book, Malachi's Message To God's Church Today. Finally, God is testing his people with the changes in the WCG: "God's church has been flooded with His precious truth. Now God is going to see if we JUST TALK about faith -- or REALLY LIVE BY FAITH -- by His word. Do we remember what we were taught and live by it?"

Anything from "The Trumpet" should be considered psychotic ranblings at best.

It is quite well known that Kind David existed. Although his origins were likely different from canon(is that the right word?) bible.

I believe there has been found only one (independent, but still far-from-contemporary) source which alludes to a possible Hebrew king named David.... I also seem to recall that MOST of the reason given for why that David might be the Biblical 'David'... was that the source they found used the Hebrew word for 'king'.

But, let us assume it to be otherwise... and that there is a wealth of evidence for a Hebrew King David... it still doesn't follow that "King David" (as detailed in the Bible) existed.

A "King David" is not proof-positive of the "King David".... and certainly not evidence of the more 'miraculous' elements of the Davidic history.

Um... I'm going to have to flame "The Trumpet" a bit.

Snip all to hell

Anything from "The Trumpet" should be considered psychotic ranblings at best.
Thank You that was very imformative. Now I know better than to give Credence to the Trumpet.

This shall be rendered with my wonderful information time saving device the All Inclusive Dismisive. If it comes from a bad source it ain't worth my time.

I'd like to expand on the All Inclusive Dismissive concept here. Say some article appears in the Weakly World News news paper. Since you know that the Weakly World News is a unreliable source you can simply ignore the the fact that the article was even written.

I doubt The Weakly World News for the same reasons I doubt the Bible. The stories are too grand and too unsuported.

Eehmm... that parts of the Bible are (reasonably) historically accurate or at least have a basis in truth is hardly news...

What would be news is that one could show that every part of it was true.

what? you mean you don't believe the one about the ark on top of ararat. but you can even see it on google earth. (if only there was a google heaven)

what? you mean you don't believe the one about the ark on top of ararat. but you can even see it on google earth. (if only there was a google heaven)

You're not related to Bambambambambam are you?

And bear in mind that on this forum we are far too lazy to find stuff by ourselves, you'll have to post a link if you want us to respond.

what? you mean you don't believe the one about the ark on top of ararat. but you can even see it on google earth. (if only there was a google heaven)

Show me what is without a shadow of a doubt the ark, and I am willing to assume that part of the ark story is in fact true until evidence to the contrary presents itself. It doesn't mean I accept everything else about this story or the book the story was found in.

After all.. humans growing from rocks[1] :p ?

[1] Brush up on your Greek mythology if you miss the reference.

Anything from "The Trumpet" should be considered psychotic ranblings at best.
even a broken clock is right twice a day.

just because they are nutcases doesnt mean that this might not turn out to be a palace of king david. you can't judge the quality of an archeological dig by the idiots who support it.

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

just because they are nutcases doesnt mean that this might not turn out to be a palace of king david. you can't judge the quality of an archeological dig by the idiots who support it.

But it saves so much time!:(

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

just because they are nutcases doesnt mean that this might not turn out to be a palace of king david. you can't judge the quality of an archeological dig by the idiots who support it.
No, but when I see it in Archeology Today I'll consider the premise valid.

No, but when I see it in Archeology Today I'll consider the premise valid.
well me too

i have no idea of the current historical status of king david let alone the likelihood that this excavation is one of his palaces.

i have no idea of the current historical status of king david

I think he's dead.

got a link to his obituary??

got a link to his obituary??

No but he hasn't returned my Christmas cards for ages now.

No but he hasn't returned my Christmas cards for ages now.

He could just be offended at you, though.

I mean, after all, he is a devout jew. Next time, try "Happy Holidays".

He could just be offended at you, though.

I mean, after all, he is a devout jew. Next time, try "Happy Holidays".
Yeah, he wouldn't even understand a "Happy Hanukkah" card either. Damn Maccabees being from a later time zone and all.

Easy - yes. Smart - no. If you do not see why, I have a very pretty bridge to sell to you.
How many monies for pretty bridge? How many??

This shall be rendered with my wonderful information time saving device the All Inclusive Dismisive. If it comes from a bad source it ain't worth my time.


Except that this piece isnt unsupported. It's been reported in the Washington post, the New York Sun, the New York Times, The Canadian Jewish news and the International Tribute Herald.

Look at the article for the references

So.... the article basically condenses down to:

1) Someone found a building.

2) It MIGHT have been an 'Israelite' building.

3) It MIGHT hav housed a heirarchical family.

4) They've actually only 'dug up' about a tenth of it, and:

5) They've still found no conclusive proof for any of articles 2 or 3... EITHER way.

And - based on this obvious multiplicity of 'evidence', they have decided it MUST be the house of "David", and that, THAT is somehow evidence of some greater biblical 'truth'....

Actually the've found evidence that

- Dates it to the time of King David in terms of the style and architecture of the building

- Fits the Biblical descripition of where it should be in relation to other buildings

- Contains artfiacts that fit the period of Davids reign

- Arcifacts that show that the palace was a Judean seat of royalty after David

There is compelling evidence here Grave. Dont pretend it doesnt exist.

Except that this piece isnt unsupported. It's been reported in the Washington post, the New York Sun, the New York Times, The Canadian Jewish news and the International Tribute Herald. Look at the article for the references

Again, until I see it in a peer-reviewed Archeological Journal, it is simple Tabloid Journalisim. I don't know much about the other 3, but I trust the Washington post and the New York Times about as far as I can throw their sunday editions.

Actually the've found evidence that

- Dates it to the time of King David in terms of the style and architecture of the building

- Fits the Biblical descripition of where it should be in relation to other buildings

- Contains artfiacts that fit the period of Davids reign

- Arcifacts that show that the palace was a Judean seat of royalty after David

There is compelling evidence here Grave. Dont pretend it doesnt exist.

On the contrary... it is in ROUGHLY the area that this one archeologist THOUGHT it should be, to match the descriptions. There is a whole load of OTHER territory there that would ALSO fit the description.

It contains artifacts that are in a very rough time-period around David's alleged reign. It is of a similar style to buildings built over a very rough period.... both timelines allow HUNDREDS of years tolerance.

Add to which, of course, it could be a much later building, made in the STYLE of an earlier building... like some American buildings being built in the style of Roman architecture. Similarly, the 'fittings' could be 'old' fittings that were placed in a house as 'antiques'. They may never have been 'new' at this site.

I don't recall anything that proved the house was a seat of Judean royalty. From what I can gather, it has SOME attributes that MIGHT fit it to that profile. That is not the same as any degree of certainty.


What there is, is a DETERMINATION, by certain 'archeologists', to fit THIS find, to a specific agenda. Indeed, the 'archeologist' admits to a VERY specific agenda behind the whole project.

Very unscientific, all in all.

I don't recall anything that proved the house was a seat of Judean royalty. From what I can gather, it has SOME attributes that MIGHT fit it to that profile. That is not the same as any degree of certainty.


If you had fully read the article, you would find that they have found an artifact with the name of one of the princes later mentioned in the Bible

another uncovered room, dating to the 6th century b.c., a bulla, or seal, was found inscribed with the ancient Hebrew name of Jehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi (Canadian Jewish News, op. cit.). Jehucal is a Judean prince mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3. This fact suggests that the site was an important seat of Judean royalty for four centuries after King David. It also matches the biblical account of the palace being in continuous use from its construction until the conquest of Judea and Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 604-585 b.c. Several years ago, another royal seal was found in the general region. It showed the name of Gemaryahu, son of Shaphan, who is also mentioned in the book of Jeremiah

On the contrary... it is in ROUGHLY the area that this one archeologist THOUGHT it should be, to match the descriptions. There is a whole load of OTHER territory there that would ALSO fit the description.

It contains artifacts that are in a very rough time-period around David's alleged reign. It is of a similar style to buildings built over a very rough period.... both timelines allow HUNDREDS of years tolerance.


Can you throw some proof behind these wild assertations

If you had fully read the article, you would find that they have found an artifact with the name of one of the princes later mentioned in the Bible

But that only works if the Bible is a reliable source, you're using circular logic here.

But that only works if the Bible is a reliable source, you're using circular logic here.

This find does go towards confirming the Bibles accuracy, since the archeological evidence supports what the Bible says was the case.

It seems no one has pointed out theone of the most basic facts here. Even if no evidence is found suggesting a link to king David, the point remains that a large palace that, it seems, might have been an important Judean center has been discovered. This could add a lot to the historical record. So, even if they don't find much in the way of biblical importance, it remains an archeologically useful dig.

This find does go towards confirming the Bibles accuracy, since the archeological evidence supports what the Bible says was the case.

Only if you use circular logic. The name on the seal could refer to anyone and it doesn't mean that the building was the seat of royalty for 400 years.

It seems no one has pointed out theone of the most basic facts here. Even if no evidence is found suggesting a link to king David, the point remains that a large palace that, it seems, might have been an important Judean center has been discovered. This could add a lot to the historical record. So, even if they don't find much in the way of biblical importance, it remains an archeologically useful dig.
No doubt. And I will look forward to the peer-reviewed findings... I will not, however, give credence to nutburger tracts like the Trumpet.

It seems no one has pointed out theone of the most basic facts here. Even if no evidence is found suggesting a link to king David, the point remains that a large palace that, it seems, might have been an important Judean center has been discovered. This could add a lot to the historical record. So, even if they don't find much in the way of biblical importance, it remains an archeologically useful dig.

Agreed.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/palacedavid.html

wasn't it already discovered?

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/palacedavid.html

Another nicely unbiased, scholarly site... :rolleyes:

If you had fully read the article, you would find that they have found an artifact with the name of one of the princes later mentioned in the Bible

I read the article, my friend...

You draw something out of it that is not there.... but it is not YOUR fault, because the article itself makes the same mistake:

"another uncovered room, dating to the 6th century b.c., a bulla, or seal, was found inscribed with the ancient Hebrew name of Jehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi (Canadian Jewish News, op. cit.). Jehucal is a Judean prince mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3. This fact suggests that the site was an important seat of Judean royalty for four centuries after King David.

They found an artifact.

This is possibly true... and can be observably tested. We shall accept this as a piece of evidence.

Second: the artifact in question is a seal (or some similar artifact), inscribed with the name of a Judean prince.

This is also possibly true, and open to a form of testing. We shall accept this as a valid description of the piece of evidence. (Even though there COULD be other 'explanations'.... for example, a DIFFERENT person by that name, who just happened to have a parent with the same name, and a grandparent with the same name.... etc).

So:

I am willing to accept the evidence... where is the problem?

Two main problems:

One: Finding a seal somewhere, does not equate to the person written ON the seal, living at the same venue. Especially if, for example, the seal has intrinsic value (could be 'collected' as a valuable trinket), or has some historical significance (as this article does.... people today pay crazy money for things John Lennon owned, and he wasn't even a Judean King).

Second: Even if the premises WERE occupied by a Judean monarch 400 years later... that, in NO WAY, means that monarchs had been occupying the spot for 400 years.... NIETHER does it mean that David must have been one of those occupants.


Your source makes unscientific assumptions about the evidence, my friend.... and the evidence was pretty weak to begin with.

Can you throw some proof behind these wild assertations

I don't need to. I am questioning the validity of another source, because I perceive flaws in that source.

If you wish to assert that that source is true and valid, the burden of proof is on you, to validate it's outlandish claims... not on me to validate my doubts.

Example: I claim that I am a thousand years old.

You might doubt that.

Which of us has to provide proof?

I don't need to. I am questioning the validity of another source, because I perceive flaws in that source.

If you wish to assert that that source is true and valid, the burden of proof is on you, to validate it's outlandish claims... not on me to validate my doubts.

Example: I claim that I am a thousand years old.

You might doubt that.

Which of us has to provide proof?

I'm getting rather sick of hearing you use this to defend your points

YOU asserted that those artifcats could be dated several 100 years diffrent. Therefore YOU have to prove it.

I'm getting rather sick of hearing you use this to defend your points

YOU asserted that those artifcats could be dated several 100 years diffrent. Therefore YOU have to prove it.
Lol the question is who cares what you are or are not sick of ... he makes a valid point

Two main problems:

One: Finding a seal somewhere, does not equate to the person written ON the seal, living at the same venue. Especially if, for example, the seal has intrinsic value (could be 'collected' as a valuable trinket), or has some historical significance (as this article does.... people today pay crazy money for things John Lennon owned, and he wasn't even a Judean King).

Possible but look at it in context of the surroundings. Given the nature of the surroundings it is much more likley that it is somehow linked to them. Those kind of seals were the property of the Judean kings. It is found in what is eaisily possibly provable to be a Judean palace. Do the maths.

Secondly, this kind of seal logically wouldnt have travelled far on the grounds that the authorities of the time would not have wanted people to have the ability to somehow forge seals. Seals are objects that are obviously linked with government. They therefore need to be kept safe for fear of forgery or other crime. Whilst there would be no point in forging that particualr kings name later, it would give you the ability to forge something very simmilar.


Second: Even if the premises WERE occupied by a Judean monarch 400 years later... that, in NO WAY, means that monarchs had been occupying the spot for 400 years.... NIETHER does it mean that David must have been one of those occupants

Well unless we find evidence to the contary, we can assume (given we have no other archeological data suggests a change of Government headquaters) that this was the location of the head of goverments office for some time. Also given that it corisponds rather nicely with the Bilical description of the location of the palace at David's time, it is a supported arguement.

Lol the question is who cares what you are or are not sick of ... he makes a valid point

No he hasnt. He claimed that it is possible to move the dating of those artificats several centuries around the proposed date. He therefore has to show why.

EG:

Archeologist 1: I have found a pot which given its design, style and shape I date back to the seventh century BC

Archeologist 2: That dating could be seveal hundrud years out

Archeologist 1: Why is that?

I'm getting rather sick of hearing you use this to defend your points

YOU asserted that those artifcats could be dated several 100 years diffrent. Therefore YOU have to prove it.

As UpwardThrust pointed out, it really doesn't matter what you are 'sick of', my friend.

The scientific community does not take things on faith, and neither should it... THAT is not the 'scientific method'.

The scientific method requires you to start from observation, not from assumption.

So - your source 'assumes' that an artifact dates to 600 BC... but what is the nature of this assumption? Is it based on an actual dating technology (like Carbon-dating).... or is it based on the fact that it mentions a 600 BC person?

What is there to provide evidence that the artifact in question was not made in 100 BC, and just mentions a character from history? (That would be a 500 year difference).

After all - I have read books, written this year, that discuss this 'Jesus' fellow... a thing doesn't have to come from the same date as the content it mentions.


So, ultimately, if your source means to be taken seriously, as a SCIENTIFIC source, it should show WHY it can tie the materials to a specific time... with something 'observable'... not just because they 'assume' it is so.

Possible but look at it in context of the surroundings. Given the nature of the surroundings it is much more likley that it is somehow linked to them. Those kind of seals were the property of the Judean kings. It is found in what is eaisily possibly provable to be a Judean palace. Do the maths.


No - it was found in a place that SEEMS TO BE a Judean Palace. What OTHER evidence have they found to support it?

One 'seal' is not much to draw a conclusion from.


Secondly, this kind of seal logically wouldnt have travelled far on the grounds that the authorities of the time would not have wanted people to have the ability to somehow forge seals. Seals are objects that are obviously linked with government. They therefore need to be kept safe for fear of forgery or other crime. Whilst there would be no point in forging that particualr kings name later, it would give you the ability to forge something very simmilar.


You are assuming that the seal MUST have travelled DURING the time of that government.

Obviously, if the seal was traded at a MUCH later date (by collectors of artifacts, maybe hundreds of years after it was made), there would be less cause to be worried about 'forgeries'.


Well unless we find evidence to the contary, we can assume (given we have no other archeological data suggests a change of Government headquaters) that this was the location of the head of goverments office for some time. Also given that it corisponds rather nicely with the Bilical description of the location of the palace at David's time, it is a supported arguement.

Now you are compounding your error. It is not certain the place in question WAS a seat of government.... least of all during David's reign. So - there is nor eason to believe it was EVER a seat of government... much less, continuously a seat of government for several hundred years.

No he hasnt. He claimed that it is possible to move the dating of those artificats several centuries around the proposed date. He therefore has to show why.

EG:

Archeologist 1: I have found a pot which given its design, style and shape I date back to the seventh century BC

Archeologist 2: That dating could be seveal hundrud years out

Archeologist 1: Why is that?

But, of course, it could be more like:

Archeologist 1: I have found a pot which given its design, style and shape I date back to the seventh century BC...

Archeologist 2: Why do you assume that? I've seen Ugaritic pots, just like that, but they were 9th century BC....

But, of course, it could be more like:

Archeologist 1: I have found a pot which given its design, style and shape I date back to the seventh century BC...

Archeologist 2: Why do you assume that? I've seen Ugaritic pots, just like that, but they were 9th century BC....

Right, so now what I want you to do is provide proof that that building could have been from another time, as you claim

Right, so now what I want you to do is provide proof that that building could have been from another time, as you claim

Perhaps you didn't read the article you reference?

It clearly says that they have yet to conclude a date:

"If the massive structure found by Ms. Mazar does prove to be 10th century..."

Not only that, but the 10th century date already has some conflicting evidence..... some of the rooms are 'roman style', it says... some of them contain 6th century BC materials, and some contain 11th century BC materials.

It's all there in the article.


"Below the walls, they first found 11th-century pottery"

"Then, within one room above the 11th-century fill, 10th-century pottery"

"In another uncovered room, dating to the 6th century b.c., a bulla, or seal, was found"

"At first, most were more recent Roman structures, like baths and pools"

I'm getting tired of showing you things you SHOULD already know, Adriatitca.... the 'doubt' is IN the article.

So - how about you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

The burden of proof is actually STILL on you.... since it is your source that is making the (ridiculously unsupported) claims.

http://www.archaeology.org/0511/newsbriefs/world.html#middleeast

Jerusalem: Has King David's palace been found? The excavator of an enormous stone structure in Jerusalem thinks so, based on pottery found at the site. But other archaeologists believe the pottery dates from centuries after the king. The argument about whether Jerusalem was a powerful city or a small settlement during the time of David continues.

The Israel Antiquities Authority has advised museums worldwide that their Bible-era relics may be fakes produced by a team of forgers now under indictment. These forgers are charged with concocting the so-called James ossuary, which purportedly held the bones of Jesus' brother. According to the AP's account, they were skilled at creating "ancient grime" that fooled many scientists into authenticating their wares. How might a forger go about making grime that seems ancient?

For starters, with a bit of chalk and water. The forgers' key to tricking the archaeologists was crafting an authentic-looking patina. Like copper or bronze statues, which develop a green sheen after years of oxidization, stone slowly builds up a layer of geological soot as the centuries reel by. This is caused by the chemical reaction of elements like air or water with the minute traces of metals and other elements within the rock. To the naked eye, a thick patina is an immediate sign that an artifact is aged.

Yet a skilled forger can fake a stone patina, at least convincing enough to fool all but the most advanced analysis. In the case of the James ossuary, for example, it's alleged that the forgers took an authentically old box that was inscribed simply "James, son of Joseph." According to Avner Ayalon of the Geological Survey of Israel, who studied the ossuary, the forgers may have then added the inscription "brother of Jesus" to the end of the sentence and used a solution of chalk and hot water to create a coating of calcium carbonate—a substance frequently found in stone artifacts excavated in and around Jerusalem. On cursory inspection, the patina appeared to be legitimate. Conventional verification means like ultraviolet light or simple chemical analysis could not differentiate the patina covering the first half of the inscription.

Ayalon became suspicious, though, when he tested the patina's isotopic ratios—that is, the number of oxygen atoms containing 16 protons plus neutrons versus the number of oxygen atoms containing 17 or 18 protons plus neutrons.* These ratios are affected over time by an object's environmental conditions. Ayalon discovered that the portion of the patina covering the first part of the inscription was marked by an isotopic ratio consistent with Jerusalem's groundwater. The section covering the latter half, by contrast, betrayed evidence of having been created at high temperatures, probably well in excess of 120 degrees Fahrenheit—far above the temperature of ground water in caves, where ossuaries were stored.

Strategies for crafting a convincing artificial patina can, of course, vary. Another alleged work of the indicted men was the so-called Jehoash (or Yoash) tablet, inscribed with what appeared to be proof that it had come from the 3,000-year-old Temple of Solomon. The tablet initially passed muster when chemical analysis revealed that trace amounts of carbon within the rock were, indeed, several millennia old. Furthermore, the patina featured traces of gold, and the temple was renowned in the Bible for its overlay of high-quality gold.

But questions arose when further analysis was undertaken and it was discovered that the patina was imbued with microscopic marine fossils—quite odd, considering the temple was nowhere near the sea. Then one of Israel's top archaeologists, Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University, found that the patina on the tablet's back was made of silica rather than calcite, which would have been consistent with Jerusalem's geology. (There were also several linguistic cues that tipped off researchers, particularly anachronisms.)

Professor Goren proposed that the inscription had been chiseled onto a slab from a Medieval castle built by crusaders. A fake patina may then have been created by crushing up bits of identical stone, mixing the powder with water, and baking the whole concoction. Charcoal bits stolen from Jerusalem archaeological digs or university museums could have been added during the process, as could have specks of gold. It may have been more elegant than adding silver black to jewelry, a common trick used by charlatans to make new pieces look old. But it wasn't quite perfect. http://www.slate.com/id/2111607/

When you want to see somthing bad enough, even hairballs can look like mice...

I'm getting tired of showing you things you SHOULD already know, Adriatitca.

Its nothing to do with what you are tierd of, friend


... the 'doubt' is IN the article.

So - how about you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

The burden of proof is actually STILL on you.... since it is your source that is making the (ridiculously unsupported) claims.

If you read the article, rather than taking quotes out at random you would see how it is stuctured. At one level you see there is the Roman building then below that they have found the building they believe to be David's palace. Then below that there are some other things, at present unknown. You are saying its totally false. I am saying that its more likely to be true than you are giving it credit for. I have presented my evidence (the article) but so far beyond your own opinion you have prodcued nothing. Please produce some evidence

Its nothing to do with what you are tierd of, friend


Careful study would have shown you that the important part of that sentence was the fact that I am showing you things you should know...


If you read the article, rather than taking quotes out at random you would see how it is stuctured. At one level you see there is the Roman building then below that they have found the building they believe to be David's palace. Then below that there are some other things, at present unknown. You are saying its totally false. I am saying that its more likely to be true than you are giving it credit for. I have presented my evidence (the article) but so far beyond your own opinion you have prodcued nothing. Please produce some evidence

Control yourself, please? I already told you I'd read the article, and I quoted from the article. Implying, therefore, that I have NOT read the article, is scoring you no points.

What it looks like you are trying to do here, my friend, is cover for the fact that you have an unsupportable claim, by attempting to belittle my responses. I don't think it's doing you any good, to be honest.

As it stands - it is not 'more likely' to be David's palace than any other eventuality. Hell, without more evidence, it isn't even 'more likely' to be a Judean monarch's house, than any other eventuality.

The structure is built out of disparate components, separated over a number of centuries. The age of the building SEEMS (we have seen no actual dating, yet) to range from Roman architecture (so... a century BC, maybe) to 1100 years BC - a THOUSAND years. There is your margin of error... parts of the building MAY have existed in 1100 BC... parts may have existed in 100BC. What you need evidence to prove, is that the building was occupied around 1000 BC (for which, we see little or no evidence), that it was occupied by a Judean monarch (for which we've seen little or no evidence), and that that monarch was "David" - for which you have yet to provide ANY evidence.

And - let us be honest.... if you COULD prove the name 'David' was connected to the building, you STILL would have to prove that the alleged 'David' of the bible was (in any way) connected to the 'David' of the premises.

Let us see evidence, my friend.... let us see something more substantial than ONE artifact, from a non-specific era (the seal could have got there ANY time after about 600 BC), that gives ANY identity to the location.

So - how about you provide some evidence to back up your claim?

The burden of proof is actually STILL on you.... since it is your source that is making the (ridiculously unsupported) claims.