King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by -Cp, Aug 7, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    JERUSALEM, Aug. 4 - An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by a conservative Israeli research institute and financed by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to prove that Jerusalem was indeed the capital of the Jewish kingdom described in the Bible.

    Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

    The discovery is likely to be a new salvo in a major dispute in biblical archaeology: whether the kingdom of David was of some historical magnitude, or whether the kings were more like small tribal chieftains, reigning over another dusty hilltop.

    The find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem - whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation.

    Hani Nur el-Din, a Palestinian professor of archaeology at Al Quds University, said he and his colleagues considered biblical archaeology an effort by Israelis "to fit historical evidence into a biblical context." He added: "The link between the historical evidence and the biblical narration, written much later, is largely missing. There's a kind of fiction about the 10th century. They try to link whatever they find to the biblical narration. They have a button, and they want to make a suit out of it."

    Read the rest at:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/i...435bc7bd0cd531&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Great to hear. I love to hear archealogical discoveries. But they dont really do much for faith. Yeah David's palace may be found, but does that prove the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if that isn't real then the Bible is nothing but a lie. Which is why I don't see why nonbelievers think archaelogy really matters. Why disbelieve because of the lack of Archaelogical support when even with it, it couldn't be considered proof. It seems to me that those who argue lack of archaelogical support just don't want to go straight to the source to find out. The only way to know whether Jesus is the Christ is to find out the same way Peter did, From God the Father. If you haven't gone to God to find out the truth, why should we listen to you? Why should we listen to someone who refuses to commune with God about Spirituality. Thats like asking a gym teacher about quantum physics.

    Anyway Im glad we may have found David's palace. it should be good for the historical record. But it doesnt change that true faith can only come through revelation from God.
     

Share This Page