Re: What evidence is there that the Temple of Solomon existed?


Darrell Stec wrote:
> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 29 August 2005 10:13 pm
> pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >
> > Matt Giwer wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm
> >> >
> >> > http://www.hshideaway.com/photo1.htm
> >> >
> >> > http://www.hshideaway.com/photo2.htm
> >>
> >> > MATT:
> >>
> >> > The issue here has been physical evidence from other than the bible.
> >>
> >> > There is none.
> >>
> >> > Hairbrained crackpots like Velikovsky are of no interest.
> >>
> >> > RAY:
> >> > The links are irrefutable, unless you are implacable.
> >>
> >> > You went ad hom because you cannot refute.
> >>
> >> The bible is a story. Stories are not physical evidence. Velikovsky was a
> >> crackpot.
> >>
> >
> > Everyone knows the only reason a person goes ad hom without any
> > provocation is because they cannot refute the evidence, and are
> > attempting to poison the well.
> >
> > If Velikovsky was as you say then it should be no problem to refute
> > him.
> >
> > We have the Karnak wall bas-reliefs, as pictured in the links.
> >
> > Avoiding these links like the plague, via insult = inability to refute.
> >
> > Velikovsky was a naturalist, atheist, non-practicing Jew. He is known
> > for his outrageous attempts to explain miracles away by natural
> > phenomenom = no bias for miracle/God.
> >
> >>
> >> > Like I said, if you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as needed,
> >> > then this evidence is child's play.
> >>
> >> It is not physical evidence.
> >>
> >
> > Asserting contrary to what anyone can observe for themself only indicts
> > your lack of honesty.
> >
> > The Temple treasures are engraved on the Karnak wall, the visual
> > depictions have been matched and identified with the descriptions in
> > the O.T.
> >
> > We have literary matching visual....visual matching literary =
> > self-corroborating evidence.
> >
>
> Ray, let's take this in one itsy bitsy step at a time. What were the
> dimensions given in scripture for Solomon's Temple?
>

Why don't you make your point ?

I know where you are going:

The Karnak bas-relief depictions are a paucity compared to what the
Temple must of contained as far as utensils and furniture.

http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm

"Under each object a numerical symbol indicates how many of that kind
were brought by the Egyptian king from Palestine: each stroke means one
piece, each arch means ten pieces, each spiral one hundred pieces of
the same thing. If Thutmose III had wanted to boast and to display all
his spoils from the Temple and the Palace of Jerusalem by showing each
object separately instead of using this number system, a wall a mile
long would have required and even that would not have sufficed."

Ray Martinez

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Oldest Biblical Text
    ... It's unlikely that Jerusalem ... was very influential as a cult center at the time. ... The first substantial temple in Jerusalem was post- ... As there is NO physical evidence of any Babylonian captivity much ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Oldest Biblical Text
    ... It's unlikely that Jerusalem ... was very influential as a cult center at the time. ... The first substantial temple in Jerusalem was post- ... As there is NO physical evidence of any Babylonian captivity much ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: The exact dimensions of Solomons Temple
    ... take your point that there is no physical evidence of it. ... You have no physical evidence that Solomon's Temple ever ... were exiled to the desert 140-133 BC IN THEIR PRIESTS' MINDS were ... God had said that Jerusalem Temple was the only true worship (these ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The exact dimensions of Solomons Temple
    ... All real things leave physical evidence. ... Therefore it is a myth. ... You failed to prove Solomon's Temple is a myth although I take your ... Locus 111 at Qumran was a substitute sanctuary. ...
    (sci.archaeology)