Part four of NOVA’s “Bible’s Buried Secrets” which I’ve edited so it’ll be as short as possible without leaving out any important stuff. The film presents the latest archeological scholarship from the Holy Land to explore the beginnings of modern religion and the origins of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament. This archeological detective story tackles some of the biggest questions in biblical studies: Where did the ancient Israelites come from? Who wrote the Bible, when, and why? How did the worship of one God – the foundation of modern Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – emerge? Related links: Tel Dan Stele (Earliest mention of David outside the bible) en.wikipedia.org The City of David en.wikipedia.org
**Contains strong language** The Secrets of the Sexes scientists try to apply their scientific theories to halp single people find love. Is this all just an experiment for the participants, or can any of them see a future in a fellow test subject?
I seriously Hated the Critics The world would be much better without them. Absolutely no life for them, instead just mouthing of other people.
“This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.”
– Israeli archaeologist, Ze’ev Herzog.
Thy deny everything until they find a pot or tablet. They said Pontius Pilate didn’t exist until they found something with his name on it. They say Jesus didn’t exist even though Christianity should be proof enough. They said Essenes didn’t exist until they found the dead sea scrolls
The first monotheistic belief was from Akhenaton LONG before any of this took place. I wonder why they do not mention this.
the letter J didnt exist until around the 15th century. it didnt exist in the days of David.
@Meskiagkasher Honestly. The only dogmatic view point put forth in this discussion was your own. You are following an assumption which you don’t allow any dispute about – that the bible is inherently wrong about everything – that is simply not true. I have a feeling that you are not as well informed on the subject as you think you are. Actually i’m sure of it. You should read more if you wish to continue this sort of discussion with someone who actually learned it.
Watch my videos.Study.
Bye.
@Joniversity the bible is wishful historization of jewish beliefs of the persian and ptolemaic periods. it has no historical value whatsoever. david and solomon are entirely fictional. to claim that they actually existed is nothing more than following religious dogma.
@Meskiagkasher (cont.) In most cases we know why a certain king was invented or exaggerated, when and by who. In some cases we have no clue at all, but for the most part we have good standing hypotheses. Extra-biblical accounts are not the only sort of evidence we go by when examining the bible and it’s depiction of history, as you should know. Just as we do with Egyptian and Babylonian accounts.
C) “dogma” – You have no idea who you’re talking to.
@Meskiagkasher A) I’m sorry but saying “the bible is not a reliable source for anything” is 1) Untrue, and 2) Non-scientific – this is the definition of bad science – just as saying the opposite would be. B) It is true that the further you go into history according to the bible the sketchier and less accurate it gets. Names of kings, their reign and more might have been fabricated, exaggerated or simply mistaken. (cont->)
@Joniversity the bible is not a reliable source for anything. do you have non-biblical writings that provide substantial details? no you don’t. in fact there are no non-biblical writings that even mention saul, david/daduya, or solomon/jedidiya whatsoever.
subsequently you are dwelling on dogma, not on evidence.
@Meskiagkasher (cont 3). Further evidence that David was real is the fact that both Kingdoms had stories about him. The Northern kingdom vilified him (killing one of his soldiers for his wife, unwanted by his father, etc.) while the Southern kingdom hailed him as the guy who killed Goliath, etc. The mix of the two different characters of David in the bible was done among other things to re-create unity between the two peoples after the fall of the Northern kingdom.
@Meskiagkasher (cont) This is why most researchers consider the Exodus to be a myth (based on folk stories with some sketchy grain of truth). We also don’t consider David to be a ruler of a vast land but probably a regional leader in the somewhat insignificant land of Juda, as opposed to the Northern Kingdom which is well documented in extra-biblical accounts. Later when the Northern Kingdom fell, David got to be an almost mythical being.
@Meskiagkasher There is a problem with both the ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ approaches. What researchers are trying to do today is to uncover evidence and cross check it against what it written in the bible, when we have a match than most researchers consider it to be more than a “coincidence”. Is it 100% sure? of course not. Nothing is, especially in history and archeology, but if the bible says something and extra-biblical findings support it it’s enough to make it probably true.
@TheFlanker35 the Tel Dan stone still does not confirm any biblical story. name coincidence is insufficient.
@Meskiagkasher,
That’s irrelevant because David is spelled the same way in the Bible. You could transliterate the Biblical figure to Dud or Dfd too. The shard writing still has been shown to be a rendering of the name ‘David’ so it’s the same name either way. Clearly, there must have been someone important named David. The letters correspond to dalet vav/waw dalet, which is the Hebrew for David.
Arthur and Lear were also based on a historical figures.
@TheFlanker35 there is just some Dud mentioned, but there is no whatsoever connection to the biblical character established. just because you could find a stone with the name Arthur on it you couldn’t declare Camelot and Avalon to be real, could you?
the correct transliteration would actually be DFD, because the hebrew/phoenician waw is the precursor of the greek digamma and subsequently of the latin F.
@Meskiagkasher,
U’s and V’s are switched in languages constantly so it should be read “House of Dvd”. In most languages, they’re the same letter. Ever notice how we call ‘W’ double-u even though it looks like double-V. We know that the inscription is written the same way ‘David’ is written in Aramaic. The stele must be referring to someone important named David.
@1:15,
The Bible says that the Israelites reverted to polytheism all of the time and it made God angry.
David did not unite Israel as a kingdom. Saul did.
And the Tel Dan stone only refers to some “House of Dud”. There is no *real* connection to the biblical character.
Gather you UK naughty women here benaughtyman.info
Michael Coogan has great books on Yahweh.
ah, the british.
You would like to cum surrounded by my sister benaughtyman.info
Chat with Russian women **leefoxnow.info**
You sound like you’d want to live in the world created by Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” =D
I really don’t trust the CQ score thing. It sounds great in theory, but in reality…
You are completely right. I think what you said was a line from a movie that my uncle played a waiter in? But to the contrary I also know that for me I couldn’t live that way.
that lady was annoying.
Dating is 1950’s bullshit.
It’s nothing more than arbitrary rules and time lines signifying nothing more then unneeded artificial stress.
People should just hook up with whoever they want when ever they want and have fun all in between.
can anyone see my videos?