Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

Jan 07, 2010
A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Professor Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription on a pottery shard discovered in the Elah valley dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time. Credit: Courtesy of the University of Haifa

Professor Gershon Galil of the department of biblical studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research.

Prof. Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa who deciphered the inscription: "It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research."

A breakthrough in the research of the Hebrew scriptures has shed new light on the period in which the Bible was written. Prof. Gershon Galil of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David's reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.

Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides the Hebrew society: The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs," Prof. Galil explains.

This undated picture released by the University of Haifa shows an ancient inscription on a piece of pottery in early Hebrew writing. The 3,000 year-old inscription discovered at a site where the Bible says David slew Goliath has been deciphered, showing it to be the earliest known Hebrew writing, Israeli archaeologists said.

He adds that once this deciphering is received, the inscription will become the earliest Hebrew inscription to be found, testifying to Hebrew writing abilities as early as the 10th century BCE. This stands opposed to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research, which would not have recognized the possibility that the Bible or parts of it could have been written during this ancient period.

Prof. Galil also notes that the inscription was discovered in a provincial town in Judea. He explains that if there were scribes in the periphery, it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers. "It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BCE, during the reign of King David, there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel." He adds that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.

The contents of the text express social sensitivity to the fragile position of weaker members of society. The inscription testifies to the presence of strangers within the Israeli society as far back as this ancient period, and calls to provide support for these strangers. It appeals to care for the widows and orphans and that the king - who at that time had the responsibility of curbing social inequality - be involved. This inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.

Explore further: Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

More information: English translaton of the deciphered text:

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

Provided by University of Haifa

4.3 /5 (43 votes)

Related Stories

Ancient handle with Hebrew text found in Jerusalem

May 20, 2009

(AP) -- Archaeologists digging on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives have discovered a nearly 3,000-year-old jar handle bearing ancient Hebrew script, a find significantly older than most inscribed artifacts unearthed ...

Piecing together the Medieval Middle East

Apr 10, 2006

An important collection of ancient Jewish and Arabic documents, equal in significance to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and discovered as fragments in an old storeroom, has received a major grant for its upkeep. The Taylor-Schechter ...

Google to open R&D center in Israel

Feb 28, 2006

Internet search giant Google will open a research-and-development center in the northern Israeli city of Haifa -- its first R&D center in the Middle East, the company announced in a statement Tuesday.

Israeli archaeologists find ancient fortification

Sep 02, 2009

(AP) -- Archaeologists digging in Jerusalem have uncovered a 3,700-year-old wall that is the oldest example of massive fortifications ever found in the city, the Israel Antiquities Authority said Wednesday.

Recommended for you

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Apr 19, 2014

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...

Crowd-sourcing Britain's Bronze Age

Apr 17, 2014

A new joint project by the British Museum and the UCL Institute of Archaeology is seeking online contributions from members of the public to enhance a major British Bronze Age archive and artefact collection.

Roman dig 'transforms understanding' of ancient port

Apr 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Researchers from the universities of Cambridge and Southampton have discovered a new section of the boundary wall of the ancient Roman port of Ostia, proving the city was much larger than previously ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
2 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2010
but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.
Obviously it was not that easy to decipher the text. On which criteria is the claim based that it is Hebrew?
powercosmic
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2010
Sorry but this alleged translation "proves" nothing of the kind that is claimed.

If such grand speculation were made in all areas of science on such flimsy "evidence" we would still be buying astrological claims.

Use of the word "king" does not mean that a kingdom existed, that "king" might have been a demented sheepherder, and worse still the translation is not known to be correct.

Lastly, even if the translation were 100% correct the writing could be the scribblings of a nobody.

The fact remains that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for the existence of the Kingdom of David or that of his son Solomon. Such a vast kingdom would have left vast tracts of archaeological evidence, just as those found in Egypt which are much much older.

Biblical Archaeology has shown us that the old testament is but a collection of bronze age fairy tales of an enslaved people.

maellis
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2010
powercosmic seems to be not only unable to discern the importance of the inscription, but betrays his prejudices which would never allow him to accept the evidence, no matter how strong. The use of "king" does not imply a kingdom? A demented sheepherder? Does he have either some basis or some expertise to question Galil's translation? And what if it is the scribblings of a "nobody." If 2000 years from now someone finds the scribblings of a "nobody" which mention President Obama and health care, does their anonymity overturn the evidence? Obviously not. Cosmo has also undervalued excavations at Solomon's stables, and the amount of sites yet to be excavated. It is not biblical archaeology which has impuned the content of the Old Testament, but antisupernatural skeptics who will remain unconvinced no matter what the evidence available.
JamesT
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2010
somehow I'm thinking that people who'll say this proves nothing would have no problem wholeheartedly believing a rock which is carbon-dated to be 200,000 years old and reads "greetings earthlings, we have come to spawn life." Must disprove all evidence that could potentially involve God, right?
mandersen
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2010
@JamesT A shard of pottery with some words on it doesn't come anywhere near proving anything about God. But I think you're right - people walk in with a bias, and see what they see through that bias.

On the other hand, I don't have a hard time believing there were people who called themselves Israelites, had a King, wrote some stuff down. It doesn't mean everything they wrote down is automatically accurate and true. So what's supernatural about it?

Was the author a nobody? If any demented sheepherder could read and write at the time, wouldn't there be even MORE texts kicking around?

Really, I can't see why this is so contentious. There's a pottery shard, it's old, it has writing on it. There were people back then, had a culture, were writing. It has nothing to do with what you think about modern Israel, or whatever it is that's getting everyone so freaked out about it. Sheesh.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 10, 2010
The fact remains that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE for the existence of the Kingdom of David or that of his son Solomon. Such a vast kingdom would have left vast tracts of archaeological evidence, just as those found in Egypt which are much much older.
Absolutely correct. Nor of an exodus, nor of joshuas campaign, not to mention 2M inhabitants of goshen at the proper time. Nor of jesus for that matter. All fairy tales/lies/sociopolitical expediency. Though brilliant youll have to admit.
It has nothing to do with what you think about modern Israel, or whatever it is that's getting everyone so freaked out about it.
The whole david/solomon/exodus myth is an integral part of the israeli constitution. It is the basis for the existance of the whole nationalist state. There is every reason to be freaked out about it. Try this guy:
http://en.wikiped...omo_Sand
http://www.youtub...vANgw9Mk
-Maybe god sneezed and it all disappeared-
JamesT
1 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2010
I'm not saying this proves God. Personally I see no need for proof there. The Heavens declare his glory and what I see is completely awe-inspiring. Period. Not even an arguable point for me. So anyone wanting to argue about it, don't bother. BUT! This finding does shed some decent credibility to a significant piece of Old Testament history. I'm content to say that this simply makes me feel like I have that much more reason to believe my Bible, that's all.
nevermark
3 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2010
@JamesT, I won't argue with you, at your request. But in return you might avoid making sketchy arguments in a scientific forum - they come across as an invitation to respond. I.e. most people agree the universe is amazing, but that doesn't imply any particular god or religion is true, or any are.

Whether or not the Bible is a credible holy book, this new evidence is historically interesting and seems to shed light on a colorful part of human history. Hooray for science!
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
BUT! This finding does shed some decent credibility to a significant piece of Old Testament history.
No it doesnt, and that is a fact. Your desire to justify your religion, and to relive the thrilling high of epiphany, blinds you. You want a thrill, go skiing. Drive fast. Hold your breath. But see your addiction for what it is. The thrill of absolute conviction- 'finally Ive found something Im certain of.' But you cant be because its not real. No argument, just statement of fact. God is not.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
it can be assumed that those inhabiting the central region and Jerusalem were even more proficient writers.
So instead of 1 shard there should be dozens, hundreds in the hands of researchers who have been looking for them for centuries, describing what should have been the most significant authority of the period.

Where are they? One shard with a few words about a mythic king and godders get all excited again. One lintel with the word David on the back. One faked ossuary with James the ossuary maker carved into it. No city, no kingdom, no jehovah the phoney patron saint of a much more recent city state.
JamesT
1 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2010
Alrightythen! WOW! Sheesh! bitter, bitter! Check your so called facts. There's a reason they're called theories. It's because they ARE AND ALWAYS WILL BE theories and nothing more. And anything called a THEORY, no matter how educated the theorist may be, or how many people agree with it, is still nothing more than a simple man's best guess at best. It doesn't matter how much evidence someone has in front of their nose, their bias or what they want to find will always show through no matter what they actually find. And I will go ahead and save you the argument and admit that yes, believers weigh the evidence biased towards the Bible's recorded and observed history, same as an evolutionist weighs the same evidence biased towards millions and billions of years of history that simply must be there because that's the only way they figure things can happen without a God involved. The main difference is Bible believers' history doesn't get stretched back more and more with every dig.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2010
Why are some religious people trying to misuse science for their ends?
Doesn't that indicate that they are in search of something to help them trust their beliefs?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2010
And anything called a THEORY
God is a theory that has been well and thoroughly debunked. We know better now. Find something contemporary to put your faith in, like the ability of humankind to solve its own problems.

If you didnt want a bitter response why'd you dump that god stuff on a science website?
JamesT
1 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2010
simply commenting on the strength of bias and presuppositions. If you don't want it to be true, then no amount of proof will convince you of it's truth. If you believe it, then you don't need any more proof.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 13, 2010
It's not what you or I WANT that makes something true or not, it is what IS or is not, which defines truth. I say that lack of evidence where evidence should absolutely exist, of the biblical stories which are the foundation of your belief in god, strongly suggests that those stories are fabrications and so is your god. It's not just that evidence us missing; but contrary evidence exists. Villages where Solomons walled cities should be. Egyptian military posts where Moses traveled throughout the Sinai. No widespread destruction by Joshua or anyone else during the period. A few ashes at jericho which are not from any miraculous sonic maelstrom. Nothing. The void is worse than you might expect.
sandeepb
not rated yet Jan 14, 2010
Why are some religious people trying to misuse science for their ends?
Doesn't that indicate that they are in search of something to help them trust their beliefs?


some people believe there is no god and some belive there is god. Actually what is god?
For what reason these two groups are fighting?
Both are talking of believes and the word "believe" is an abstract term(can be interpreted in more than one way) then why are these people (not the one i quoted) involving science(which works with concrete things) into believes?

I think we getting off the track by this debate.
mayan
1 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2010
Some scrolls contain "lost arc" like secrets. You will Shun by some space metals that do exotic things,singularity existing in metals, ancient bones,old wood that attracts cereals like r_ "iice" (to prevent search engines from accessing) etc, these objects pull the r_ "iice" and turn them them black & burn them, they attract flame, they transfer power to "ccooppper" wire and this in turn attracts the cereal R_ "iice". The main principle to test behind this is any non metallic hydride is being pulled by these exotic objects, ie they suck the hydrogen . They neutralize electronics.

Their power is increased 1000's of times in a German lab, these can stop any air vehicle by gravity beams etc.
some text too will be there in 1970's books on "Rare Earth Metal Applications"
Some proof on utube
http://www.youtub...=related

http://www.youtub...=related
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
For what reason these two groups are fighting?
Both are talking of believes and the word "believe" is an abstract term
It is not belief but acts in the name of religion which cause conflict. Religions tell its constituents that theirs is the only true path to salvation and that non-believers would threaten this. Religions are thus exclusivist; they divide the people up and set them against each other. You may say yours isnt that way, but I bet your children are well-fed and you have a job and a place to live.

Religions hate anything which might caus apostasy; and as most are based on old, easily-disproved myths and pseudoscience, they resist any inquiry into history or the true nature of things.

As I say the true danger- the true evil of religion- is not in faith but in works. Religion will stifle thought, derail science, end progress if given the chance. It will leave to god the things which humanity needs to do for itself. It will continue to cause conflict and misery
lamashtoo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2010
Physorg why is this on your site? This is a science site not some cockamamy theology website. Not only that the entire article is laughable. Nothing found in this supposed discovery in any way supports or conflicts with so called Biblical Archeology. More importantly there exists no evidence to support anything in the Old testament. I am very disappointed with the webmasters of Physorg right now, this should not be anywhere near or even linked to your website. This is not science.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 15, 2010
The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.
I'm not sure if the deciphered text is directly related to specific biblical passages. But inferring from the sentiments expressed that a kingdom and a religion existed at the time is clearly unscientific and most obviously religiously biased. It is also unclear if this bias is the original authors of the article or if physorg edited info from it. Either physorg is inclined to print religiously biased info or they will edit articles in such manner; either way it gives manna for debate and a chance to discredit religion in general.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 15, 2010
Either physorg is inclined to print religiously biased info or they will edit articles in such manner;
Neither, nor. Get yourself a PR office of a known university and all your stuff will show up here. Except when in broken German, of course. :)
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 15, 2010
Echt? Meinen Deutsche ist nicht gebrochen, nur ausser Betrieb
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 17, 2010
Actually, this shard has many of the same phrases from Isaiah 1:17 and other verses/chapters in the Old Testament. This is proof indeed. We must not ignore or cherry-pick that which we choose from legitimate scientific evidence.
boxfiddler
not rated yet Jan 17, 2010
"because its not real."
Someone found it. Someone translated it. How is it it's not real?
boxfiddler
not rated yet Jan 17, 2010
Furthermore, who decreed that Science and Religion are enemies? Truth seekers are brothers in arms.

The bickering, and downright hatred isn't between Science and Religion, it's between men using one or the other to promote their own will.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
Actually, this shard has many of the same phrases from Isaiah 1:17 and other verses/chapters in the Old Testament.
Similar; as well as the enuma elish, the koran and bhagavad Gita?? Pat religious pap is not proof, only evidence that theyre all the same... crap.
"because its not real."
Shard is real. Religion the institution is real. Yahweh is not.
men using one or the other to promote their own will.
-An apt description of the standard religious institution. Science hates lies and bullshit and generally tries the expunge it from within its ranks (its generally not reproduceable phenomena). Religions embrace it, institutionalize it, carve it in stone; and condemn anything which threatens it.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
@kingpin9
Just out of curiosity, if I were to present these same phrases or similar to you in texts from an earlier religion, would you take that as scientific proof that your religious tomes were written by plagiarists? I would start with the enuma elish which is where much of the fiction in the Torah came from-
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
The enuma elish is from approximately 700BC (some say "probably" 1700 BC, which is not reliable for obvious reasons). The Jewish Torah has now been proven to be "at least" 1000 BC. So who exactly is plagiarizing who?
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
http://en.wikiped...ma_Eliš
"The Enûma Eliš exists in various copies from Babylonia and Assyria. The version from Ashurbanipal's library dates to the 7th century BC. The composition of the text probably dates to the Bronze Age, to the time of Hammurabi or perhaps the early Kassite era (roughly 18th to 16th centuries BC), although some scholars favour a later date of ca. 1100 BC"  -The earlier date is more reliable for obvious reasons (that is, most of the bible is redacted and adulterated myth, legend, political expediency and grandstanding).
-You might protest that I left out the 'citation needed' wiki notes in the quotes, although these facts are well accepted among scholars; but if the bible was edited as wiki is, it would be chock full of 'citation needed' notes.
As sumerian/babylonian culture predated most others, and certainly anything in the Levant, the stories in their documents predated the copies in the bible. Abram came from Ur, nicht wahr?
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
First, I do not use wiki as a source. Second, we must hold to what can be proven. The shard of pottery recently found completely goes against what 'scholars' have been saying for years concerning the apparent 'late' date of the OT. There are many liberal 'scholars' that have made much--ad infinitum--about the differences of city names in the Bible, but this is easily explained in that names of cities went through minor changes and even nicknames as time marched on. Just as Chicago is known as "chi-town", etc. The only true translation that is in accord with the original Hebrew, Syriac (note I did not say "Greek") is the Authorized Version.

Unfortunately, many do not 'truly' have an open mind to the discovery of hard, contradictory information that goes against what they have learned. This is true not only in society in general, but also, can be found in the scientific community to a lesser extent. I.E., Climategate and more recently, 'apparent' Himalayan glacier shrinkage
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
Let me also add that this shard of pottery gives us hard proof that proves a date of at least 1000 BC. We must then ask at what earlier date was the original OT text (that the shard of pottery is based on) written? The only logical answer is that we look forward to future excavations with heightened anticipation.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
First, I do not use wiki as a source.
Pish tosh. Your sources are indeed uncitationed. These wiki facts are well-known.
The shard of pottery recently found completely goes against what 'scholars' have been saying for years concerning the apparent 'late' date of the OT.
Its NOT proof of OT anything. These are standard religious phrases typical of many religions. 'Be good to widows and orphans. Hail the king whom your god loves' etc.
the discovery of hard, contradictory information
which unfortunately the bible is full of (hard to swallow)
we look forward to future excavations with heightened anticipation
because you will eagerly take the opportunity to misinterpret them to feed your religion addiction? More discoveries (like all those previous you fail to acknowledge) will only add more evidence to support the obvious conclusion that NONE of that stuff ever happened.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
-I like that little household shrine they found in an early hebrew home. It had 2 seats... apparently jehovah had a wife back then.
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
There been dozens more discoveries via excavations, including the Moabite Stone.

To get back on topic, Kitchens had this to say about maintaining the apparent "older" date of the Enuma Elish, "In characteristic fashion, religious modernists allege that the biblical writer/writers borrowed from the Babylonian record. But sound scholarship has demonstrated that such a view is fallacious. Simpler accounts (e.g., the Genesis record) may give rise to more embellished versions, but the reverse is not the case."

Time reveals all things Mr. Otto.

otto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
Who is Kitchens and what denomination is he?
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
Moabite stele;
"The controversy over whether ancient inscriptions confirm the existence of the Biblical King David usually focuses less on the Mesha stele and more on the Tel Dan stele." -wiki
The house of David reference in these 2 artifacts- doesn't it seem to you that they are earlier invocations of the same myths that the Israelis wrote into their constitution? The Moabites oppressors refer to themselves as decendents of David and so do those oppressed... A nickname. The fictional David and his patron god give the Hebrews the right to oppress their neighbors.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
Kitchen- ah, evangelical. Prolific Egyptologist, university of Liverpool (their affiliation?). Success based on a career faithfully toeing the line? A totally unbiased source.
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
Kenneth (I misspelled his name as "Kitchens" earlier) Kitchen is a professor of Egyptology and Archaeology from the University of Liverpool.

His quote above is essentially common sense. Embellishments happen in routine day-to-day gossip. Remember, the Babylonians were notorious for human sacrifice and other wicked practices. They were also known for incorporating other beliefs as their own.

Keep in mind, there are even people today that would deny there was ever a Temple with artifacts in Jerusalem, even though there is secular proof (Arch or Titus) outside of the OT.

I think you are confusing the Moabite Stone as a Jewish artifact. It is not. The Moabites were not Jews.
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
"Kitchen- ah, evangelical. Prolific Egyptologist, university of Liverpool (their affiliation?). Success based on a career faithfully toeing the line? A totally unbiased source."

Evangelical is a word that describes someone that believes in the Great Commission, as mentioned by Christ. There is nothing negative with that description.

I have no desire to debate you Mr. Otto. I have had literally dozens and dozens of similar conversations in the past. I only have the desire to consider facts, and the facts show--based on more and more excavations--that the historicity of the Bible is true.

I hope you read sources of information from all angles.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2010
believes in the Great Commission
And that puts them a little further up in the line?
the facts show--based on more and more excavations--that the historicity of the Bible is true.
heh heh
I hope you read sources of information from all angles
Ahaahaa! Sorry
the Babylonians were notorious for human sacrifice and other wicked practices
As were the Israelites- they cast malformed and unwanted babies into the arms of Moloch at Gehenna.
Jewish artifact
Let me clarify; Israelis today justify the establishment of their state by invoking the house of David, and explain this to everyone including their enemies, that god gave them this land. Would not the ancient Hebrews have done the same thing? 'OUR GOD gives us the right to lord over you.' Moabites would have been very familiar with the myths of their usurpers and we would expect them to include reference to such in records, which the stele is.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2010
I have no desire to debate you Mr. Otto
no, because one of the first things I would want to know is what makes you think your particular religion is any better than any other (yes you do) and why, if given the opportunity, you would see all those other religions but your own end. And then I would have to point out that they feel the same way about you and yours. And so together we would both discover the source of organized conflict in the world, which you probably wouldn't like very much.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
One more thing- arch of Titus- if you look closely, those beardless gents carrying the menorah and other booty are roman soldiers, not captive Hebrews as legend would have it. Too bad none of the actual artifacts survive today or we would have ACTUAL proof (no we wouldn't- only more Shrouds and Spears and sacred relics encased in jewelled reliquary).
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
"if you look closely, those beardless gents carrying the menorah and other booty are roman soldiers"

What legend are you referring to? Christ said that the temple would be torn down and not a stone left unturned. Of course it was Roman soldiers! The Bible does not say it would not be Roman soldiers !

Your "legend" comment has no merit.

Let's try to keep this civil please.
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
"As were the Israelites"

A few apostate Israelites did sacrifice when they absorbed some of the pagan rituals. God was against them and this practice and the Jews were judged for these acts (they did not have a nation for over 2000 years). Sin is sin.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2010
-I like that little household shrine they found in an early hebrew home. It had 2 seats... apparently jehovah had a wife back then.

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho:
it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Herzog
kingpins9
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
"In this article Herzog 'claims' "...

Opinion. Like I said earlier, people will curse and swear and believe this drivel, yet ignore proof through the dozens of excavations. Just as we have no empirical evidence of observed evolution (and I'm not talking about adaptation or microevolution).

It's funny that agnostics/atheists generate so much hatred and vitriol toward Christians. One thing is certain, truth will be revealed to all upon death. It's just sad that it will be too late that point to repent. Something to consider.

Kirk out.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2010
"In this article Herzog 'claims' "...
Opinion.
From Wikipedia:
Ze’ev Herzog (born 1941) is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University. Ze’ev Herzog is the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005.
His claim is:
biblical archaeology is not anymore the ruling paradigm in archaeology and that archaeology became an independent discipline with its own conclusions and own observations which indeed present us a picture of a reality of ancient Israel quite different from the one which is described in the biblical stories.

frajo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2010
It's funny that agnostics/atheists generate so much hatred and vitriol toward Christians.
It's sinful/immoral to accuse a person of something the person didn't do.

Yes, some non-believers generate much hatred and vitriol. Does this imply that all non-believers behave this way?
So do some believers, but not all.

And now let's continue with arguments.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
funny that agnostics/atheists generate so much hatred and vitriol toward Christians
Honest arrogance as opposed to false humility- f l wright
-smug religionists with that smile on their faces, belies more hatred and the potential to violence (we threaten your very soul!) Get thee behind me you vipers! All religions must fall, yours is nothing special, just another one on the pile.
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
Of course it was Roman soldiers! The Bible does not say it would not be Roman soldiers !
Whoa hey, sei ruhig- looks like you're right, I only mentioned it because this guy does: 
http://www.youtub...be_gdata
-He proofs are as unequivocal as those of your prof Kitchen (more so), in this case that Jewish history is largely fabrication. Shlomo Sand
otto1923
not rated yet Jan 21, 2010
ok Shlomo says that from youth, students are taught that the scene on the arch of titus depicts israelites being sent into exile carrying the menorah and some holy table and not roman soldiers heading to the pawn shop. This is apparently a well-known interpretation to prove the diaspora happened. Netanyahu had his picture taken there and the press described it as such.

More news stories

Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 ...

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.