Biblical City Ruins Discovered UNDER Ruins Of Another Ancient City....

Biblical City Ruins Discovered UNDER Ruins Of Another Ancient City....

An ongoing excavation in Israel has uncovered new evidence of an ancient city buried beneath the King Solomon-era metropolis of Gezer.

An international group of archaeologists has been working together for several years on the dig, located between modern-day Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, according to a statement released by the Israel antiquities Authority (IAA). An important historical city in its own right, Gezer is mentioned in both the Old Testament and in Egyptian historical accounts as a stop on the highway connecting ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

This summer researchers unexpectedly had a breakthrough

Well, I haven't posted a story on this site in quite a few weeks, Here is one that I thought some here would find interesting for various reasons [Biblical as well as Political]

Enjoy

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thank you for sharing that. I did find it interesting. (Just as interesting as some of the comments underneath the said article in the link. Will have to sit and go through that lot later. )

S & F for you.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Wonderful news.

What do you think the implications of this will be?

Of course, the naysaying Jordanian/Palistinian apologists will dismiss such things as untrue or irrelevant.

Sigh.

reply to post by BO XIAN


You know, I've been working on a story about the Canaanites.
Stay tuned.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks. If you don't see me on the thread when you put it up, and recall, please U2U me.

imho, that's the most critical region in the multiverse.

I see it as the fulcrum or maybe . . . the bottleneck? . . . from the past to an extremely different future.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hey, GREAT story and a wonderful find! I just got through this semester of dealing with that area of time for college history, so it's all fresh and relevant. It's amazing what they're finding to confirm areas and little contextual details of biblical accounts.

Yo.... a Palestinian city underneath a biblical city

possibly the ruins of the city that Goliath resided in at that


ergo... modern Israel has only the 1948 UN mandate and NO historical 'ownership' of the Land

reply to post by BO XIAN

Of course, the naysaying Jordanian/Palistinian apologists will dismiss such things as untrue or irrelevant.

You mean except for the ones who have a far better knowledge of history than you obviously do. Who knows how long the Sumerians had been in that area and if people look it would be no surprise to find even older cities.

reply to post by SLAYER69

It looks like this city would have served a dual purpose. Financial, but more importantly, military.

Gezer also holds some of the largest underground water tunnels of antiquity, which were likely used to keep the water supply safe during sieges.

"If you didn't control Gezer, you didn't control the east-west trade route."

A strategic location, and once it fell into obscurity, it still would have had value as a water source for a long time. I suspect there will be more finds coming out of this dig, that will tell a more detailed story.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Very interesting and the most famous case (Though not biblical) is the similar site of Troy, Heinrich schlieman had to dig through about seven other citys to the troy of greek legend and it itself is built over even earlier citys.
This can happen for a number of reasons, Trade routes and suitable building sites being some as for others well they have been know to reuse the stones of the older ruins to build new citys on the same site, Jerusalem itself is the most famous biblical example, in the holy land this is actually quite common as you can trip over archaeology everywhere, sadly uncovering the earlier archaeology always destroys the later archaeology but in time less intrusive methods may be developed, some things though require the handling of an expert.
Great find and S+F.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


AND

Supported by Ancient Egyptian accounts as well.
I've said before, that I don't believe everything in the bible but that doesn't mean there are parts of the bible that are not historically accurate.

reply to post by buster2010


Can almost always count on you for such a personal slapdown. Impressive.

Time will tell as to who knows the most about the most important historical factors of the region.

Some don't seem to have a clue about the top historical priorities from the top Authority's perspective.

Uh... Let's not turn an interesting thread into a snipe fest, Please.

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

AND

Supported by Ancient Egyptian accounts as well.
I've said before, that I don't believe everything in the bible but that doesn't mean there are parts of the bible that are not historically accurate.

When I think of using the bible as a history book, I always think of the two main guys in M.I.B. and how they use tabloids to get leads. Even if it's 95% patriarchal bloodbath, the other 5% has some truth and that's what makes the bible valuable to everybody.

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

AND

Supported by Ancient Egyptian accounts as well.
I've said before, that I don't believe everything in the bible but that doesn't mean there are parts of the bible that are not historically accurate.

really? historically accurate?....in the old testament?....hmmm....that would be some interesting evidence if you could unearth it (so to speak)

Cuervo

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

AND

Supported by Ancient Egyptian accounts as well.
I've said before, that I don't believe everything in the bible but that doesn't mean there are parts of the bible that are not historically accurate.

When I think of using the bible as a history book, I always think of the two main guys in M.I.B. and how they use tabloids to get leads. Even if it's 95% patriarchal bloodbath, the other 5% has some truth and that's what makes the bible valuable to everybody.

why would it be valuable to everybody? have you ever wondered why the "other" books of the bible were later removed?...or the fact that the "writings" in the bible came from many different authors, of different generations, of different lands?....

St Udio
Yo.... a Palestinian city underneath a biblical city

possibly the ruins of the city that Goliath resided in at that


ergo... modern Israel has only the 1948 UN mandate and NO historical 'ownership' of the Land

Why not? Conquest is a legitimate means of establishing ownership. Most of the countries in the world did not exist in their present shape a few hundred years ago, should we go around reversing all the changes? Are you willing to hand the keys of your house over to the nearest American Indian tribe?

To the victor the spoils, etc.

reply to post by jimmyx


Here, This should help

jimmyx

Cuervo

SLAYER69
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

AND

Supported by Ancient Egyptian accounts as well.
I've said before, that I don't believe everything in the bible but that doesn't mean there are parts of the bible that are not historically accurate.

When I think of using the bible as a history book, I always think of the two main guys in M.I.B. and how they use tabloids to get leads. Even if it's 95% patriarchal bloodbath, the other 5% has some truth and that's what makes the bible valuable to everybody.

why would it be valuable to everybody? have you ever wondered why the "other" books of the bible were later removed?...or the fact that the "writings" in the bible came from many different authors, of different generations, of different lands?....

So did Marvel comics but I think even those are a valuable social statement on contemporary society.

I do not pull religious inspiration from the Christian bible yet I'm no so ignorant as to ignore it. The bible is a source material object from eras long lost to us and it would be foolish of me to let my pride or derision towards Christian history cloud my interest in a fascinating book that humanity is fortunate to have somewhat intact.

jimmyx

why would it be valuable to everybody? have you ever wondered why the "other" books of the bible were later removed?...or the fact that the "writings" in the bible came from many different authors, of different generations, of different lands?....

From my understanding the 'Bible' most are familiar with was created at and by the Council of Nicaea at which it was decided which books would be included in the creation of the 'Bible' most are familiar with. How can something be removed that was never in it in the first place?

Now, if you're talking about the Torah, that's a whole other beast.

Back to the Christian Bible, I wish they had included the Book of Enoch...