Author Topic: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon  (Read 2735 times)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« on: October 27, 2008, 05:58:02 PM »
Copper ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
New carbon dating shows the site is older than previously believed. Critics say there's still no evidence of an empire.
By Thomas H. Maugh II

3:46 PM PDT, October 27, 2008

A massive copper smelting plant in the biblical land of Edom is at least three centuries older than researchers previously believed, placing it firmly in the biblical timeline of King Solomon, the first ruler of a united Israel 3,000 years ago, researchers reported Monday.

The existence of Solomon has been questioned by some scholars over the last two decades because of the paucity of archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record and the belief that there were no complex societies in Israel or Edom capable of building fortresses, monuments and other complex public works, such as large mines, in the 10th century BC.

"This is the most hotly debated period in biblical archaeology today," said archaeologist Thomas E. Levy of UC San Diego, who reported the new radiocarbon dates for the copper smelting operation in modern-day Jordan in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"We're not answering the question" of whether Solomon existed, he said. "But we've brought empirical data that shows we have to reevaluate those questions. We're back in the ballgame now."

Archaeologist William Schniedewind of UCLA agreed, saying Levy "is completely right. The scientific evidence seems to be going in his favor."

Critics, however, charge that Levy is overinterpreting the importance of the radiocarbon dates, because there is no evidence of habitation at the earliest dates to go with them. That suggests the site was operated periodically by nomads and not associated with any city or kingdom, much less an empire, according to archaeologist Piotr Bienkowski of the University of Manchester in Britain.

Without further evidence, "it is premature to start talking about links with a 'biblical Solomon,' " he said.

Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University in Israel, added: "Taking the biblical description of King Solomon literally means ignoring two centuries of biblical research."

The stories recounted in the Old Testament, he said, "depict the concerns, theology and background of the time of the writers" in the 5th century BC and cannot be accepted as factual.

According to the Old Testament, Solomon was the son of King David and Bathsheba who brought Israel to its ancient fruition, ruling an empire that stretched from the Euphrates to the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba. He is said to have built the First Temple in Jerusalem, amassed a fortune in gold and wrote the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.

The legendary King Solomon's Mines of book and movie fame, however, were mythical gold and diamond mines in Africa, according to experts.

According to the Bible, Solomon reigned for 40 years before dying in 931 BC.

Finkelstein and others, however, have argued that Jerusalem was barely inhabited at that time and could not have been the center of an empire. This "minimalist" view holds that Israel did not develop into a true state until the 8th century BC.

The current center of the controversy is a 24-acre site called Khirbat en-Nahas -- Arabic for "ruins of copper" -- about 30 miles south of the Dead Sea and 30 miles north of the famed archaeological site of Petra in Jordan. It is the largest Iron Age copper factory in the Middle East.

The most notable characteristic of the site is the massive accumulation of black slag produced during the ancient smelting process. The site includes more than 100 buildings, including a fortress. Mines and mining trails abound.

Because wood was used to produce the heat for smelting, charcoal samples are available for dating. Two years ago, Levy reported radiocarbon dates from the site indicating that mining was taking place in the 10th century BC. Finkelstein and others objected, noting that archaeological evidence in the nearby highlands of Edom show no evidence of habitation before the 8th century.

To answer those criticisms, Levy's team excavated through 20 feet of slag near the center of the site, carefully documenting the location of each bit of charcoal and other artifacts. The charcoal was then dated by physicist Thomas Higham of Oxford University.

The bottom stratum of the site revealed a period of extensive mining that lasted for about 40 years around 940 BC and produced 9 feet of slag. There was then a major disruption in mining about 910 BC, followed by a resumption in the 9th century.

In the stratum associated with the disruption, they found an Egyptian scarab from the eastern delta or Tanis and an amulet linked to the Egyptian goddess Mut.

The "tantalizing question," Levy said, is whether these artifacts are associated with the Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonq I (known as Shishak in the Bible), who conquered much of Palestine following the death of Solomon.

Records in Egypt show that Sheshonq's troops occupied Hazevah, about eight miles from Khirbat en-Nahas.

"We can't believe everything ancient writings tell us," Levy said. "But this research represents a confluence between the archaeological and scientific data and the Bible."

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-solomon28-2008oct28,0,4883091.story

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19255
  • Getbig!
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2008, 08:06:09 AM »
It appears that, once again, we have archaeological finds, verifying Scripture. As usual, you have your share of folks, who will now switch to marginalizing/minimalizing the findings, once their initial claims go by the wayside.


OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2008, 08:25:18 AM »
It appears that, once again, we have archaeological finds, verifying Scripture. As usual, you have your share of folks, who will now switch to marginalizing/minimalizing the findings, once their initial claims go by the wayside.



Archaeological finds do not verify scripture.  Just because some scripture talks about a village or monument and it is found thousands of years later, that does not verify, as true, everything else in the scripture.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19255
  • Getbig!
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2008, 08:33:46 AM »
Archaeological finds do not verify scripture.  Just because some scripture talks about a village or monument and it is found thousands of years later, that does not verify, as true, everything else in the scripture.

I did not say that it did. Loco mentioned this the last time something like this came up. But, on far too many occasions Biblical skeptics have crowed long and loudly that certain people/places/events didn't exist or happen, only to be proven wrong (followed by their subsequent backtracking/marginalizing), once archaeological discoveries are unearthed. He also gave examples of such, as did I.


OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2008, 08:39:47 AM »
I did not say that it did. Loco mentioned this the last time something like this came up. But, on far too many occasions Biblical skeptics have crowed long and loudly that certain people/places/events didn't exist or happen, only to be proven wrong (followed by their subsequent backtracking/marginalizing), once archaeological discoveries are unearthed. He also gave examples of such, as did I.



I personally don't doubt nearly any place that's talked about in the bible existed. 

This is what i was responding to.

Quote
It appears that, once again, we have archaeological finds, verifying Scripture.

verifying "locations" in Scripture would seem to be more accurate.

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2008, 09:46:40 AM »
I personally don't doubt nearly any place that's talked about in the bible existed. 

This is what i was responding to.

verifying "locations" in Scripture would seem to be more accurate.

It is much more than just that.  It's also verifying Biblical events, characters, who they were, what they did, etc.

Skeptics are the ones who bring up the absence of archaeological findings on a certain Biblical event, location or person as proof that the Bible is inaccurate and full of errors.  So these findings do verify that these skeptics are wrong, and not the Bible.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2008, 09:52:30 AM »
It is much more than just that.  It's also verifying Biblical events, characters, who they were, what they did, etc.

Skeptics are the ones who bring up the absence of archaeological findings on a certain Biblical event, location or person as proof that the Bible is inaccurate and full of errors.  So these findings do verify that these skeptics are wrong, and not the Bible.

you seem to think it a victory of the bible to get some of its accounts right, bravo. Exodus is severly lacking is real evidence along with many other biblical accounts.


loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2008, 09:59:38 AM »
you seem to think it a victory of the bible to get some of its accounts right, bravo. Exodus is severly lacking is real evidence along with many other biblical accounts.

No, not until these findings are verified.  They still don't know for sure if these are indeed Solomon's mines.  It is possible that they are not.  Either way, I believe everything that the Bible says about Solomon and Exodus.

Many other Biblical events, civilizations, locations, characters who have been verified by archeology and history today were once severely lacking real evidence as well.  Some of these have already been posted by MCWAY and I.  It's only a matter of time before archeology catches up with the Bible on Exodus.  But even if it doesn't, you either have faith or you don't.  And that faith does not rest on these archaeological discoveries.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2008, 11:16:15 AM »
It is much more than just that.  It's also verifying Biblical events, characters, who they were, what they did, etc.

Skeptics are the ones who bring up the absence of archaeological findings on a certain Biblical event, location or person as proof that the Bible is inaccurate and full of errors.  So these findings do verify that these skeptics are wrong, and not the Bible.

How so?




loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2008, 11:29:58 AM »
How so?

In this case, if these prove to be Solomon's mines, it verifies not only that there was a king named Solomon, but also that he was as wealthy as the Bible says he was.  In this case, it is much more than just verifying a location.  It also opens the door to more evidence of his father, king David, who some skeptics used to say never existed.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2008, 11:37:06 AM »
In this case, if these prove to be Solomon's mines, it verifies not only that there was a king named Solomon, but also that he was as wealthy as the Bible says he was.  In this case, it is much more than just verifying a location.  It also opens the door to more evidence of his father, king David, who some skeptics used to say never existed.

Agreed.  But it does not verify ALL events associated with the location.    It only partially verifies 2 things:  He was and he was wealthy.  It doesn't verify anything more at the moment such as miracles, direct acts of God, conversations with god etc...   

 

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2008, 11:53:29 AM »
Agreed.  But it does not verify ALL events associated with the location.    It only partially verifies 2 things:  He was and he was wealthy.  It doesn't verify anything more at the moment such as miracles, direct acts of God, conversations with god etc...   

No, not in this case.  But the point is that, contrary to what some skeptics have argued, the absence of archaeological evidence alone about a certain Biblical location, character, event, etc. is not proof it did never happen or that it did never exist, thus proving, supposedly, that the Bible is full of historical errors.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2008, 12:03:52 PM »
No, not in this case.  But the point is that, contrary to what some skeptics have argued, the absence of archaeological evidence alone about a certain Biblical location, character, event, etc. is not proof it did never happen or that it did never exist, thus proving, supposedly, that the Bible is full of historical errors.

how so?

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2008, 12:19:51 PM »

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2008, 12:49:13 PM »
I meant to delete that,  site is trippin again.

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19094
  • loco like a fox
Re: Ruins in Jordan bolster biblical record of King Solomon
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2008, 01:08:00 PM »
Yeah, getbig = extremely unreliable