3,000-year-old palace in Israel linked to biblical King David

[BlueGin]

I was looking at the picture of the artifacts found. Pretty impressive workmanship for 1000 BC

*****************************************************************

Israeli archaeologists say they have found the remains of a palace that they believe was a seat of power for the biblical King David — but other experts say that claim shouldn't be taken as the gospel truth.

The discovery, announced on Thursday by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, revives a debate over one of the Bible's central stories as well as the origins of the ancient Jewish state. The debate focuses on an archaeological site known as Khirbet Qeiyafa, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Khirbet Qeiyafa has been associated with the ancient city of Sha'arayim, which is mentioned several times in Jewish scriptures as Judean territory.

For seven years, archaeologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the antiquities authority, or IAA, have been excavating the site — and finding ample evidence of a fortified city dating back to around 1000 B.C. That's the era when the House of David is thought to have ruled over the Israelite tribes.

On Thursday, the Hebrew University's Yosef Garfinkel and the IAA's Sa'ar Ganor announced the completion of the excavation. They said they uncovered evidence of a 10,000-square-foot (1,000-square-meter) palace in the center of Khirbet Qeiyafa, with a 100-foot-long (30-meter) protective wall. A pillared building to the north was apparently used as an administrative storeroom.

3,000-year-old palace in Israel linked to biblical King David - NBC News.com

 

[Publius1787]

cool

 

[hortysir]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

 

[Steven_R]

They said they uncovered evidence of a 10,000-square-foot (1,000-square-meter) palace in the center of Khirbet Qeiyafa, with a 100-foot-long (30-meter) protective wall. A pillared building to the north was apparently used as an administrative storeroom.

To put that in perspective, the average Wal-Mart Supercenter is 100,000 square feet.

 

[BlueGin]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

Yep.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I would look for the sign that says, "David slept here."

 

[Publius1787]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

You won't find as much in the Koran.

 

[konradv]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

 

[Friends]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

There is archaeological evidence of Canaanite expatriots living in the eastern part of the Nile Delta. around 1400 B.C. That is where the book of Exodus says the Hebrews lived. It called that area "the Land of goshen."

The Hebrew population in Egypt then was not as large as the book of Numbers states, but it probably was there.

 

[konradv]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

There is archaeological evidence of Canaanite expatriots living in the eastern part of the Nile Delta. around 1400 B.C. That is where the book of Exodus says the Hebrews lived. It called that area "the Land of goshen."

The Hebrew population in Egypt then was not as large as the book of Numbers states, but it probably was there.

There were a lot of people living in the Nile delta. The question remains why there's no evidence of an invasion and conquest of Canaan and no independent evidence that there ever was a Land of Goshen.

 

[Friends]

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

There is archaeological evidence of Canaanite expatriots living in the eastern part of the Nile Delta. around 1400 B.C. That is where the book of Exodus says the Hebrews lived. It called that area "the Land of goshen."

The Hebrew population in Egypt then was not as large as the book of Numbers states, but it probably was there.

There were a lot of people living in the Nile delta. The question remains why there's no evidence of an invasion and conquest of Canaan and no independent evidence that there ever was a Land of Goshen.

Evidence of Israelite settlements begin to appear about 1200 B.C. in what is not the West Bank of the Jordan River.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

And yet there is evidence that the Jews fled Egypt and parted the sea to do so.

 

[konradv]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

And yet there is evidence that the Jews fled Egypt and parted the sea to do so.

No there isn't. There are stories, but they don't constitute evidence. The archaeological evidence shows that the Israelites were group of indigenous Canaanites and that there was no mass immigration and conquest.

 

[irosie91]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

If you read the bible---you will find ample evidence ----that the Israelites were a group
indigenous to Canaan ---whilst they were in Egypt. Read it carefully----conversation
indicates the people still in canaan -----seemed to see them as "oh ---you're back"----
as if they never actually lost contact completely Try to focus----Israel is not all that far
from Egypt-----Etymological analysis of HEBREW----indicates that hebrew speaking
jews picked up a few egyptian words------whilst in egypt----words which did not exist
prior to that encounter in the lexicon ----also some names My guess is that some
Istaelites actually remained in Canaan for the duration and/or----some canaanites
joined the group----when the Israelites began to build cities -----some of those
fights -----resulted in MERGED populations -------<<<< read the book again.
I cannot imagine how POTTERY style would disprove anything. It might prove
something-----but not DISPROVE

 

[konradv]

I love it when archeology proves Biblical accounts

How about when it disproves biblical accounts? Analysis of pottery from around the time of the Exodus proves that the Israelites were an indigenous group in Canaan and no mass migration or conquest ever took place. That's a lot more significant than a palace that may or may not belong to a specific king. Proof would actually require some sort of inscription indicating who built and/or lived there.

If you read the bible---you will find ample evidence ----that the Israelites were a group
indigenous to Canaan ---whilst they were in Egypt. Read it carefully----conversation
indicates the people still in canaan -----seemed to see them as "oh ---you're back"----
as if they never actually lost contact completely Try to focus----Israel is not all that far
from Egypt-----Etymological analysis of HEBREW----indicates that hebrew speaking
jews picked up a few egyptian words------whilst in egypt----words which did not exist
prior to that encounter in the lexicon ----also some names My guess is that some
Istaelites actually remained in Canaan for the duration and/or----some canaanites
joined the group----when the Israelites began to build cities -----some of those
fights -----resulted in MERGED populations -------<<<< read the book again.
I cannot imagine how POTTERY style would disprove anything. It might prove
something-----but not DISPROVE

You'd expect those that came back from Egypt to bring back pottery styles with them, but the Israelite styles are indistinguishable from other Canaanite pottery. There's also the problem of there being no evidence of a conquest. Remember, to match the Bible story there must be evidence of a MASS migration, not just a small group coming back from a stay in Egypt AND there must be evidence of the destruction of Canaanite cities. Neither is found in the archaeological evidence. The only thing that differentiates Israelite sites from the others is the lack of pork bones. Even calling God 'Elohim' is evidence of their being indigenous Canaanites, who worshiped the god El.

 

[Jroc]

I wish when those Jews made up stories we'd at least look a little better in them

 

[konradv]

I wish when those Jews made up stories we'd at least look a little better in them

You have to realize that the Torah was assembled in the aftermath of the Babylonian Captivity and the Israelite leadership needed an origin story to rally the people. Rome had Romulus and Remus and the Aeneid. Are we to believe they're true down to the letter? Many cultures have those kinds of stories, they just don't have the advantage of being hailed as "God's word". I'm not knocking the Jews or God, I'm just saying the archaeology doesn't match the story.