NOAH'S ARK GREAT FLOOD Update

[betsy]

Anyway, while we await the result of the ongoing Flood exploration, a new archeological discovery was found!

2.750-year-old temple discovered

• By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
  
• 12/27/2012
  

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The Israeli Antiquities Authority says the discovery was made during preparations for a new section of the planned highway.

"The ritual building at Tel Motza is an unusual and striking find, in light of the fact that there are hardly any remains of ritual buildings of the period in Judaea at the time of the First Temple," excavation directors Anna Eirikh, Hamoudi Khalaily and Shua Kisilevitz were quoted as saying.

According to the Bible, the First Temple was built in Jerusalem by Solomon, son of King David, and archaeologists estimate that construction was undertaken in the 10th century B.C.

The Tel Motza temple must have been active in an era "prior to the religious reforms throughout the kingdom at the end of the monarchic period (at the time of Hezekiah and Isaiah), which abolished all ritual sites, concentrating ritual practices solely at the Temple in Jerusalem," The excavation's directors said.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=49087

[betsy]

Another exciting discovery awaiting results for confirmation. Excerpts:

"May be the most important discovery in the history of archeology."

The director of the Jordan's Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, says the books might have been made by followers of Jesus in the few decades immediately following his crucifixion.

A group of 70 or so "books", each with between five and 15 lead leaves bound by lead rings, was apparently discovered in a remote arid valley in northern Jordan somewhere between 2005 and 2007.

A flash flood had exposed two niches inside the cave, one of them marked with a menorah or candlestick, the ancient Jewish religious symbol.

A Jordanian Bedouin opened these plugs, and what he found inside might constitute extremely rare relics of early Christianity.

Incredible claims

The director of the Jordan's Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, says the books might have been made by followers of Jesus in the few decades immediately following his crucifixion.

"They will really match, and perhaps be more significant than, the Dead Sea Scrolls," says Mr Saad.

"Maybe it will lead to further interpretation and authenticity checks of the material, but the initial information is very encouraging, and it seems that we are looking at a very important and significant discovery, maybe the most important discovery in the history of archaeology."

Their leaves - which are mostly about the size of a credit card - contain text in Ancient Hebrew, most of which is in code.

If the relics are of early Christian origin rather than Jewish, then they are of huge significance.

One of the few people to see the collection is David Elkington, a scholar of ancient religious archaeology who is heading a British team trying to get the lead books safely into a Jordanian museum.

He believes the most telling evidence for an early Christian origin lies in the images decorating the covers of the books and some of the pages of those which have so far been opened.

"There is a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books too and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem."

It is the cross that is the most telling feature, in the shape of a capital T, as the crosses used by Romans for crucifixion were.

"It is a Christian crucifixion taking place outside the city walls," says Mr Davies.

Margaret Barker, an authority on New Testament history, points to the location of the reported discovery as evidence of Christian, rather than purely Jewish, origin.

"We do know that on two occasions groups of refugees from the troubles in Jerusalem fled east, they crossed the Jordan near Jericho and then they fled east to very approximately where these books were said to have been found," she says.

"[Another] one of the things that is most likely pointing towards a Christian provenance, is that these are not scrolls but books. The Christians were particularly associated with writing in a book form rather than scroll form, and sealed books in particular as part of the secret tradition of early Christianity."

The Book of Revelation refers to such sealed texts.

http://www.israelsme...books_found.htm

Edited January 1, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Another one in an on-going process of excavation/discovery:

Khirbet Qeiyafa

Dates of excavation season:

Sunday June 23^rd till Friday, July 19^th 2013

Location: Israel, 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem Periods: Iron Age, early 10^th century BC; Hellenistic Nearest village: Kibbutz Netiv Ha-Lamed Hei

During the past 30 years, the biblical narrative relating to the establishment of a kingdom in Biblical Judah has been much debated. Were David and Solomon historical rulers of an urbanized state-level society in the early 10^th century BC, or was this level of social development reached only at the end of the 8th century BC, 300 years later? Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the first early Judean city to be dated by 14C, clearly indicate a well planned fortified city in Judah as early as the late 11^th-early 10^th centuries BC. This new data has far reaching implication for archaeology, history and biblical studies.

http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/

Excerpts:

Recent excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa* have had an enormous impact on our understanding of the formation of the Kingdom of Israel. The only known Judahite fortified city dating to the time of Saul and David, Khirbet Qeiyafa has reshaped debates on urbanism during the early Israelite monarchy.

The highly regarded French epigrapher Émile Puech provides one of the most groundbreaking interpretations, presenting the Qeiyafa Ostracon as the earliest text on the formation of the Kingdom of Israel and the only artifact referencing King Saul.

In the May/June 2012 BAR, Gerard Leval adds to the discussion on the heavily debated Qeiyafa Ostracon by reviewing Émile Puech’s translation and analysis for the first time in English.

According to Puech, this translation of the Qeiyafa Ostracon “contained all of the essential” components of the Biblical tale on the transition from Judges to the selection of Saul as the leader of a new Kingdom of Israel.

The excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa identify the site with Biblical Shaarayim. After David slays Goliath, the Israelites pursue the Philistines “on the way to Shaarayim” (1 Samuel 17:52). According to the Bible, Shaarayim must have existed during Saul’s reign, and finds from Khirbet Qeiyafa corroborate the chronology.

If Puech is correct, the Qeiyafa Ostracon is the only known artifact to reference the first king of the Kingdom of Israel. Its tone suggests that it refers to a recentl event, making it stand out as the oldest account of Saul and the formation of the Kingdom of Israel.

http://www.biblicala...gdom-of-israel/

Edited January 1, 2013 by betsy

[jbg]

There could have been some local flood that inspired a story. The argument was (and remains) that the flood could not have happened the way it is described in the Bible.

We've had similar length rainy periods in New York. And if they happen in the desert, which they can, there's no where for the water to go.

Frankly, I believe the Bible is metaphorically, not literally true.

[msj]

Frankly, I believe the Bible is metaphorically, not literally true.

What is the metaphorical truth of the story of Noah's Ark?

[jbg]

What is the metaphorical truth of the story of Noah's Ark?

Probably a humongous rainy period such as New York experience in October 2005, or August-October 2011. Or the equivalent of Sandy, which was a tidal surge.

[msj]

Probably a humongous rainy period such as New York experience in October 2005, or August-October 2011. Or the equivalent of Sandy, which was a tidal surge.

Well, that's disappointing.

I was hoping for some kind of metaphysical awakening and all you give me is the weather channel.

[Canuckistani]

Not much deeper meaning there tho, is there? The bible is myth, it's the truth of a people but not literal truth. I'm sure there have been catastrophic floods many times in human history - catastrophic for a tribe or grouping of people. This would get handed down and embellished over time. Primitive people usually looked for a relationship between their behavior and what happens in the natural world, just as children and some adults still do today. So if you believe your people have a personal relationship with God, then God must have had a reason for allowing this flood, ie we must have been bad, and the survivors good. It provides a sense of security, because if I'm good enough, God won't kill me. The smarter ones start noticing that often the good guys get killed and the bad guys live a long and happy life, so they figure out it must be way more complicated than that.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jbg]

Well, that's disappointing.

I was hoping for some kind of metaphysical awakening and all you give me is the weather channel.

If the Bible weren't covering events that did occur or in human experience were likely to occur it wouldn't be the world's most widely read book.

[msj]

If the Bible weren't covering events that did occur or in human experience were likely to occur it wouldn't be the world's most widely read book.

I find this line rather funny.

The good book wasn't always so widely read.

Although that was probably due to literacy (lack thereof) and technology (books not cheap) and one can often do well to control others access to "sacred" ideas.

Also, a book being widely read does not give it any kind of magical properties or any kind of authority.

But, lets face it - to have various tyrants of the day force feed people various versions of the good book over thousands of years is going to eventually lead people to read the good book and then many of those people are going to turn into atheists as they titter away at just how laughable the good book really is.

[Canuckistani]

just how laughable the good book really is.

It's not laughable at all. How people choose to interpret it, on the other hand, is another matter.

[Mighty AC]

It's laughable when people assign it any more value than any other mythological text.

[Guest Manny]

Not much deeper meaning there tho, is there?

The meaning is in what you bring to it. I could tell you what I think of it, but that would only be my personal interpretation.

If laughing it off as a childish myth is your response, well, that's you then.

It doesn't matter what you believe right now, as long as people keep thinking at all. Or questioning... But I think that once we think we KNOW what this is all about, that's just about the most wrong we can be.

[Canuckistani]

The meaning is in what you bring to it. I could tell you what I think of it, but that would only be my personal interpretation.

If laughing it off as a childish myth is your response, well, that's you then.

It doesn't matter what you believe right now, as long as people keep thinking at all. Or questioning... But I think that once we think we KNOW what this is all about, that's just about the most wrong we can be.

I don't laugh off myths at all, I recognize them for what they are and the truth they can hold. It's just not literal truth. But the idea that a natural event is caused by humans being bad is a childish one - it's exactly the sort of thinking children engage in, where they think they are responsible for events totally out of their control. Now if the flood was caused by humans cutting down all the trees, that's another matter.

[kimmy]

But it's more than just the "ebellishments." It's also all the other things that goes along with it. The whole package.

Without the "embellishments", it's just a story about a flood. If the flood wasn't sent by God to destroy all life on earth except his chosen handful and the animals they could put on their magic boat, then it's just a story about a flood.

Similarly, Sodom and Gomorrah. Maybe they were real places, but so what? The message Christians tell us to take from Sodom and Gomorrah is not that they were real places, the message Christians tell us to take from Sodom and Gomorrah is that the price of sin is annihilation.

You can show that some of the places existed, but without the fantastical events described, it's just National Geographic.

-k

Edited January 1, 2013 by kimmy

[Guest Manny]

the idea that a natural event is caused by humans being bad is a childish one - it's exactly the sort of thinking children engage in, where they think they are responsible for events totally out of their control. Now if the flood was caused by humans cutting down all the trees, that's another matter.

Such a huge flood as told in the story, doesn't seem too natural.

On the other hand the idea of Karma, that stuff could come back to get you one day, that you are responsible for what you do, or that you might even be innocent and get caught up in what someone else does, that there may be a storm in your life that tests your will to live... we could talk about things that way, instead of an arc with giraffes

[msj]

You can show that some of the places existed, but without the fantastical events described, it's just National Geographic.

Well, at least that's better than the Weather channel.

[Canuckistani]

Such a huge flood as told in the story, doesn't seem too natural.

On the other hand the idea of Karma, that stuff could come back to get you one day, that you are responsible for what you do, or that you might even be innocent and get caught up in what someone else does, that there may be a storm in your life that tests your will to live... we could talk about things that way, instead of an arc with giraffes

No, and such a huge flood didn't happen. The earth, during the time of humans, was not completely covered in water. It's people of a locality mistaking their place for the whole earth, because it's all they know. Just as they could think they are God's chosen people.

I don't think the ark is the best example of karma. And my understanding of karma is that it's your actions that come back at you, not innocent bystanders. The bible says "the sins of the fathers" and there's truth in that, but it's not karma. Karma doesn't mesh with monotheism, since it needs reincarnation to function.

What you've talked about are all good things to consider. The ark story is a very poor vehicle to illustrate them, the bible has much better. The ark story doesn't seem to have any deeper meaning (unless you want to put it there), it's just the story of the survivors of a natural disaster, embellished over the years, and also for political reasons. Not everything in the bible if of equal depth or wisdom. It's a book written by humans, so it contains a lot of nonsense as well.

[Guest Manny]

Not everything in the bible if of equal depth or wisdom. It's a book written by humans, so it contains a lot of nonsense as well.

Would you say the same thing about... Isaac Newton. Because we would readily dismiss many things that Newton wrote about, and I can provide examples that would have you shaking your head in "disbelief". But because of that, for whatever reason which we cannot relate to in Newton, we cannot discount Newtonian mechanics.

[Canuckistani]

Would you say the same thing about... Isaac Newton. Because we would readily dismiss many things that Newton wrote about, and I can provide examples that would have you shaking your head in "disbelief". But because of that, for whatever reason which we cannot relate to in Newton, we cannot discount Newtonian mechanics.

I'm not sure what point or analogy you're trying to make here? What is the equivalent of Newtonian mechanics in the bible? And, Newtonian mechanics have been superseded by quantum mechanics as new discoveries were made. Where's the book to supersede the bible?

[cybercoma]

You can show that some of the places existed, but without the fantastical events described, it's just National Geographic.

-k

It's too bad your earlier London-Harry Potter analogy didn't sink in.

[kimmy]

Isaac Newton was very interested in some fantastical things-- alchemy, Biblical prophecy, the occult... And we can not discount his scientific works despite his belief in fantastical things.

The reason Newton's scientific works can not be discounted is that their merits can be proven over and over again by an endless number of experiments. No corresponding evidence can be provided for his works in alchemy, Biblical prophecy, or the occult. That's why we study Newton's laws of motion but not Newton's ideas about how lead might be transmuted into gold.

And perhaps the Bible has some merit as an atlas of the ancient Middle East... but its value as a history book is suspect and its value as a science text is laughable.

-k

[kimmy]

It's too bad your earlier London-Harry Potter analogy didn't sink in.

For those that missed it the first time: the fact that London exists doesn't qualify as evidence that the events in Harry Potter actually happened, or as evidence that wizards are real.

-k

[Canuckistani]

Isaac Newton was very interested in some fantastical things-- alchemy, Biblical prophecy, the occult... And we can not discount his scientific works despite his belief in fantastical things.

The reason Newton's scientific works can not be discounted is that their merits can be proven over and over again by an endless number of experiments. No corresponding evidence can be provided for his works in alchemy, Biblical prophecy, or the occult. That's why we study Newton's laws of motion but not Newton's ideas about how lead might be transmuted into gold.

And perhaps the Bible has some merit as an atlas of the ancient Middle East... but its value as a history book is suspect and its value as a science text is laughable.

-k

And, as I said, Newton only got it right as far as he could see. When people could see further, they saw where he got it wrong - God is not a giant watchmaker, but a gambler. What mechanism exists in monotheism to modify the bible as further information comes in. Seems the last time anybody did that was 2000 years ago.

[betsy]

Oh well, the same old rebuttals are being given again.....yet still disregarding the main thrust of the argument, which was repeated for the umpteenth times, as a reply to Dre.

You can choose to believe the Bible is nothing more than just a "myth" I guess, even if Ballard finds a plank that has the words, "The Ark" emblazoned on it...or a tattered coat that says, "granpa Noah"....I guess some folks would still insist to want to see it as nothing more than a "myth." What else can I say?

Edited January 1, 2013 by betsy