“And Solomon Built Gezer”
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2022
- On today’s program, host Brent Nagtegaal takes you on a tour of Gezer, highlighting the latest evidence supporting Solomonic-period construction.
SHOW NOTES: armstronginstitute.org/730-an...
WEBSITE: armstrongInstitute.org
FREE MAGAZINE: armstronginstitute.org/magazine
EMAIL UPDATES: pcog.activehosted.com/f/32?em...
CONTACT US: letters@ArmstrongInstitute.org
Excellent! Thanks so much, Brent. It takes way more effort, but when you are able to get out of the office to one of these sites, it gives us such a better understanding, and the vegetation blowing in the breeze simply makes it all that much better.
Very welcome!
Golly! This is wonderful. Thank you for sharing with us/me! 💙
Thanks, Brent.
Totally enjoyed this segment ,
I am seeing the David and Solomic Dynasty in a much better way than over the past years.
Much Blessings, the World needs this kind of Education.
So good to hear Dever is still fighting the Good Fight.
Mr.Nagtegaal Great Podcast Thank you for explaining Archeology so well.
Great video. Thanks! 👍
Amazing, how much of history was interconnected between ancient Egypt, Israel, Assyria.
Never thought about ancient war of Empires.
Hi brent ...thanks a lot for your explanations....no coincidence...all comes from G.od....this new fire of ghezer will bring new discoveries....G.od bless you
How does a stone building burn?
if a wood fire gets hot enough it will set fire to the cresol that will melt the stone and if limestone the lime in it will brun. Or you can look at how the midevel church of Note Dame in morden Perais France burned, not all of the midevel stone could be reused due to the fire reducing it to copy made of line ash.
Very Interesting. But how can Merienptahhetephermaat do such things during ʾĒlōn's time 1214-1204 ad after Jipthach 1227-1221 and ʿIbtzān 1221-1214?
Shelōmōh's 1016-976 Father in Law was Pa-seba-chai-en-niut-meri-Amun Psusennes I arround 1040 - arround 994
Dāwīd 1056-1016, born 1086
Shāʾūl 1096-1056
You could've fooled me that Finkelsteins low chronology dating of Solomonic sites hadn't become mainstream. It might not have become mainstream in Academia, but for laymen like me he has been the face of Levantine Archeology in Mainstream media, along with his prerogative i.e. It's fashionable to be anti-Biblical in secular society.
Only thing in the ground is what they have done already this is the last build my book says run but there is nowhere to go
JERUSALEM was in NAMIBIA next to the Orange River and opposite PELLA in South Africa .
🥕
Problem is there is no historical solomon except in the bible.
Ok bit of a reality check. I can find actual place names, locations, real people, real battles in the corpus of the Arthurian Cycles but we do not consider the overall work to be a real history. Same with the Bible.
That's not completely true. We don't know the actual locations for the 12 battles Arthur fought, including Mons Badonis, no clue it's location only that it was one of his battles, and a major defeat for the Saxons. We don't know where Arthur "held court" be it the city of legions or Camelot. We don't know where he died, only that it took place at Camlann. So there are much more unknowns with King Arthur. King Shlomo, we know a bit more. We know his capital, we know where he built his temple. We know the cities King Solomon gave to the King Of Tyre did come under Phoenician influence from Israelite influence. Also the consistency in the gate structures in the cities he reinforces are of the same style. Working on the same blueprint. So I am much more comfortable with the idea of a King Yedidyah/Shlomo existing then a King Arthur. Finkelstein and his low chronology/ minimalist view is on the outs academically, anyway...so yeah, reality check lol
@@joshdorin931 The point was that every discovery that's made in Levant is somehow misconstrued to prove the bible is a factual historical document, when it is not. Are there references to place names events and people? Yes, as do a great many myths do all over the world, thus much to the disbelief of believers, the bible is in no way unique. The overall work is not a true history under any circumstance as much in it contains a large body of myth that is spread all over the Middle East and reaching back to Sumer and the early City-States of Mesopotamia well before the Hebrews were even a people. As such has nothing to do with the current belief in the Bible in the way many people want to characterize biblical "history". And actually the references in the corpus of Arthurian tales do have relevance to the historical landscape of post Roman Britain. Forbes pointed to many of these the the Four Ancient Books of Wales. Does it definitively prove Arthur? No, and the bible is no different.
@@kevinmurphy65 I must disagree with you, at least on certain points. By the time we get to the Era of Saul and the United Monarchy, we are dealing with primary sources that are, and indeed viewed by the scribes that wrote them as entirely historic documents: The Chronicles of The Kings of Judah and Israel. Here we are dealing with Israel's Kings on a macro-level, and a history of The People of Israel on a Micro-level. They did not record the great deeds of some godkings who destroy the dragon of chaos to renew order in the world, as the mesopotamians believed. No, we are dealing with kings who reinforce Gezer, and Megiddo, who make alliances with the kings of Tyre and marry daughters of Phoenician Kings. Who build a Phoenician style Temple and Palace in the capital city of Jerusalem, in Ihr David. A King who is far from heroic, but one who cannot control his wives. One who probably taxed his populace beyond reason to build his temple, as his son Rechovoam states: "My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions!’”. These are not the stories, of mythic kings, or even good kings, there is no archetypal model here. In fact there is if anything an aire of failure and weakness on the part of our old kings. These are very human kings l, and they come across as very flawed, not heroic, but flawed. There is really nothing that these kings do which is monumental on a global level or even regional level. There is no King Gilgamesh. Everything these kings do is rather prosaic actually. Had there been no influence of Christianity on western culture we probably wouldn't even be discussing this. No, this is no myth. These are the records of actual kings attested to by Moabite, Assyrian, and Babylonian sources. I don't view them as religious documents. The fact that they are I the bible is happenstance, in my opinion.
@@kevinmurphy65 You don't have a point, rather you cling to an increasingly untenable belief position. The FACT is the Bible, a historical document, is independently corroborated by material culture, archeology, radiocarbon dating and extra-biblical historical documentation. That is FIVE independent lines of evidence. Despite this, pagans cling to an anti-science, anti-history assertion that somehow ALL of it was fabricated over a period of millennia to dupe who, exactly, you, a people that did not even exist when this history was being recorded. Sounds legit. The point is you people are not engaged in reality and have not been in quite some time now.
You're embarrassing yourself and the peculiar group of science and history deniers you represent.
@@leroybrown9143 Please. Live in reality. No, no it is not. The only embarrassment is your tired useless affront to reality. The only place it is "independently corroborated" is in religious "schools", real historians, real literary historians, real archaeologists, geneticists (this by itself has destroyed any notion of the Exodus), you know the guys and gals that do history and religion for real? Yeah the evidence is overwhelming and demonstrates every step along the way, your attempt to bend reality to biblical "history" fails. To the point: I never said there was not any history in the bible, but combined with overwhelming preponderance of myth that is intertwined with it in renders it useless as "history".
Solomon is a metaphor for the”sun”….. sol/ on/om.
No, his name wasn't Solomon, it was Shlomo. The "on" is a common Greek ending, Shlomo or Sholomon or Solomon. His given name was Yedidyah. He was CALLED Shlomo because he was a generally peaceful (Shalom) king.
@@joshdorin931 …. And the Greeks rewrote the Old Testament… sol/ on/om. The ancients all worshipped the SUN…. Incidentally the word Jesus is also a metaphor for the SUN…. The letters all represent numbers… they happen to add up to 888…. That’s the number representing the Sun…. Jesus even calls himself the Sun god in the book of revelation…
The "Old Testament" I read is in Hebrew. Not Greek or English, for that matter.
@@joshdorin931 .. understood