David şi Solomon au existat – Decodificarea unui mesaj de 3.000 de ani confirmă existenţa regelui Solomon

Pictura Tissot – Solomon – dedicarea Templului (wikipedia) SURSA L. Romana Semnele Timpului

Câteva caractere sculptate într-un vas vechi de 3.000 de ani s-au dovedit a fi nu doar cel mai vechi text alfabetic scris descoperit în Ierusalim, ci şi o puternică dovadă în favoarea existenţei regelului Solomon, menţionat în Biblie.

textconfirmasolomon (Foto: zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)Mesajul, încă nedescifrat complet, este însă important prin simpla sa existenţă, explică Gershon Galil, profesor de istorie antică şi studii biblice la Universitatea din Haifa. Pe laterala vasului se poate înţelege expresia „al douăzecilea şi al treizecilea an al domniei lui Solomon”, ceea ce confirmă existenţa regelui Solomon.

„Dovada pe care o avem astăzi, ca şi altele pe care le-am descoperit, ne arată clar că David şi Solomon au existat cu adevărat, au fost regi importanţi şi că acestea nu sunt doar nişte poveşti din Biblie. Regatul lui Solomon a existat cu adevărat”, explică Galil într-un interviu pentru Foxnews.

În plus, dovada concretă a unui alfabet ebraic face ca vechii israeliţi să fi fost beneficiarii unui sistem administrativ şi fiscal încă de la jumătatea celui de-al zecelea secol înainte de Christos – mult mai devreme decât se ştia până acum din dovezile arheologice.

Aceasta înseamnă şi că regele Solomon este cel care a construit templul şi care a extins Ierusalimul. „În afara textelor biblice, până acum nu aveam vreo dovadă în acest sens, dar textul acesta o confirmă”, a declarat profesorul.

Three letters of the inscription are incomplete, and Galil translates them to read, „yah-yin chah-lak,” which is Hebrew for „inferior wine.” The first half of the text indicates the twentieth or thirtieth year of Solomon’s reign – making the entire inscription a label of sorts for the jug’s contents.

SURSA L. Romana Semnele Timpului  – English –  Foxnews.

Message decoded:
3,000-year-old text may prove
biblical tale of King Solomon

A few characters scratched into the side of an ancient earthenware jug have archaeologists scrambling for their dictionaries – and wondering if it corroborates the Bible’s stories of King Solomon.

The Ophel inscription – 3,000-year-old characters found in Israel in July – is the earliest alphabetical written text ever found in Jerusalem. It proves the real basis behind the parables and stories in the world’s most famous book, said Gershon Galil, a professor of ancient history and biblical studies at the University of Haifa.

„We are dealing here with real kings, and the kingdom of David and Solomon was a real fact,” Galil told FoxNews.com, in a phone call from Israel.

But the world’s leading archaeologists are still hotly debating the meaning of the inscription. Gershon offers what he calls the „only reasonable translation,” noting at the same time that the very existence of the text is as important as its meaning.

‘If Obama were to achieve something, he would not claim that Bush did it. It’s not in human nature!’

– Haifa University professor Gershon Galil

„The most important thing this tells us is that somebody during this time knew how to write something,” he said.

Three letters of the inscription are incomplete, and Galil translates them to read, „yah-yin chah-lak,” which is Hebrew for „inferior wine.” The first half of the text indicates the twentieth or thirtieth year of Solomon’s reign – making the entire inscription a label of sorts for the jug’s contents.

He explains that the text must be written in an early form of southern Hebrew because it is the only language of the time to use two yods(Hebrew letters) to spell the word wine. Galil also suggests that the „inferior wine” was probably given to laborers who were helping to build the burgeoning city of Jerusalem.

If Hebrew as a written language did exist during the time of the inscription, it places the ancient Israelites in Jerusalem earlier than previously believed, under a time the Bible indicates was King Solomon’s rule.

According to Galil’s understanding of the text, the writing ability demonstrated by the inscription proves the existence of a fully functioning administration that collected taxes, prepared storage jars and performed other duties as early as the second half of the 10th century BC.

„The Bible claims that Solomon built the temple and that he was the man that enlarged the city,” explained Galil. Outside of biblical texts, there has not been any evidence that Solomon in the mid-10th century BC ordered the building of the First Temple, the ancient Israelites’ place of worship where the Dome of the Rock currently stands.

Some suggest Judean King Hezekiah actually built the temple in Solomon’s name. Galil scoffed at the suggestion.

„If Obama were to achieve something, he would not claim that Bush did it. It’s not in human nature! Solomon built the temple, not Hezekiah.”

„Even if my reading is not the right one, the fact that somebody knew how to write [in Hebrew] during this time, shows that somebody could have easily written a book a little while later like [the Old Testament’s] book of Samuel and Judges.”

Galil hopes that in years to come, more evidence will be found to support the Kingdoms of Solomon and David.

„The evidence that we have today and each year we have so much more that David and Solomon were real and important kings and not just tales of the Bible,” he said.

The Temple according to the Bible (via wikipedia)

The earliest source of information on the First Temple is the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). According to the biblical sources, the temple was constructed under King Solomon during the united monarchy of Israel and Judah. This puts the date of its construction in the mid-10th century BCE. Some scholars have speculated that a Jebusite sanctuary may have previously occupied the site. During the kingdom of Judah, the temple was dedicated to Yahweh, the god of Israel, and is said to have housed the Ark of the Covenant. Rabbinic sources state that the First Temple stood for 410 years and, based on the 2nd-century work Seder Olam Rabbah, place construction in 832 BCE and destruction in 422 BCE (3338AM), 165 years later than secular estimates.

The following is a summary of the history according to Book of Samuel and Book of Kings, with notes on the variations to this story in the later Book of Chronicles.

The Mishkan (dwelling place) of the god of Israel was originally the portable shrine called the Ark of the Covenant, which was placed in the Tabernacle tent. King David, having unified all Israel, brought the Ark to his new capital, Jerusalem, intending to build there a temple in order to house the Ark in a permanent place. David purchased a threshing-floor for the site of the Temple (1 Chronicles 21–22), but then Yahweh told him that he would not be permitted to build a temple. The task of building therefore passed to David’s son and successor Solomon. 1 Kings 6:1–381 Kings Chapter 7, andChapter 8 describe the construction and dedication of the Temple under Solomon.

King Solomon requested the aid of King Hiram of Tyre to provide both the quality materials and skilled craftsmen. During the construction, a special inner room, named in Hebrew Kodesh Hakodashim (Holy of Holies), was prepared to receive and house the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kings 6:19); and when the Temple was dedicated, the Ark—containing the Tablets of Stone—was placed therein (1 Kings 8:6–9).

The exact location of the First Temple is unknown: it is believed to have been situated upon the hill which forms the site of the 1st century Second Temple and present-day Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock is situated. However, two other, slightly different sites have been proposed on this same hill: one places the stone altar at the location of the rock which is now beneath the gilded dome, with the rest of the temple to the west. The Well of Souls was, according to this theory, a pit for the remnants of the blood services of the korbanot. The other theory places theHoly of Holies atop this rock. Still another location has recently been proposed between the Dome of the Rock and the gilded dome, based on orientation to the eastern wall, drainage channels, orientation of the platform stones, and the location of a possible Boaz pillar base.

2 Chronicles 12:9, and 1 Kings 14:26 describe the Sack of Jerusalem by the Pharaoh Shishaq, who „took away the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house.”

2 Kings 12:4–16 describes arrangements for the refurbishment of the Temple in the time of king Jehoash of Judah in the 9th century BCE. According to 2 Kings 14:14 the Temple was looted by Jehoash of Israel in the early 8th century and again by King Ahaz in the late 8th century (2 Kings 16:8). Ahaz also installed some cultic innovations in the Temple which were abhorrent to the author of 1–2 Kings (2 Kings 16:10–18).

The Temple also figures in the account of King Hezekiah, who turned Judah away from idols; when later in the same century Hezekiah is confronted with a siege by theAssyrian king Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:23, 19:1 and the Taylor prism), Hezekiah „instead of plundering the temple treasuries… now uses the temple the way it is designed to be used — as a house of prayer (2 Kings 19:1–14).

Hezekiah’s son Manasseh, however, was much different from his father; during his reign of the early and middle seventh century (2 Kings 21:4–9), Manasseh made innovations to the Temple cult. He has been described as a Solomon who also fell into idolatry, and Manasseh is described as a king who „makes” (2 Kings 21:3–7) or „builds” (2 Kings 21:3) high places (cf. 1 Kings 11:7) (see Deuteronomy 12 for the prohibition against high place worship), yet while Solomon’s idolatry was punished by a divided kingdom, Manasseh’s idolatry was punished by exile.

King Josiah, the grandson of Manasseh, refurbished and made changes to the Temple by removing idolatrous vessels and destroying the idolatrous priesthood c. 621 BCE (2 Kings 22:3–9; 23:11–12). He also suppressed worship at altars other than the Temple’s.

The Temple was plundered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar when the Babylonians attacked Jerusalem during the brief reign of Jehoiachin c. 598 (2 Kings 24:13), Josiah’s grandson. A decade later, Nebuchadnezzar again besieged Jerusalem and after 30 months finally breached the city walls in 587 BCE, subsequently burning the Temple, along with most of the city (2 Kings 25). According to Jewish tradition, the Temple was destroyed on Tisha B’Av, the 9th day of Av (Hebrew calendar).

Architectural description in the Bible

A sketch of Solomon’s Temple based on descriptions in the Tanakh

Several temples in Mesopotamia, many in Egypt, and some of the Phoenicians are now known. The description given of Solomon’s Temple in the Bible is not a copy of any of these, but embodied features recognisable in all of them. Its general form is reminiscent of Egyptian sanctuaries and closely matches that of other ancient temples in the region, however the complexity of inner chambers and unique functions does distinguish the temple strongly.

The detailed descriptions provided in the Tanakh and educated guesses based on the remains of other temples in the region are the sources for reconstructions of its appearance. Technical details are lacking, since the scribes who wrote the books were not architects or engineers. Nevertheless, the recorded plans and measurements have inspired Replicas of the Jewish Temple and influenced later structures around the world.

Reconstructions differ; the following is largely based on Easton’s Bible Dictionary and the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Most Holy Place

The Kodesh Hakodashim, or Holy of Holies, (1 Kings 6:19; 8:6), also called the „Inner House” (6:27), (Heb. 9:3) was 20 cubits in length, breadth, and height. The usual explanation for the discrepancy between its height and the 30-cubit height of the temple is that its floor was elevated, like the cella of other ancient temples.[12] It was floored and wainscotted with cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings 6:16), and its walls and floor were overlaid with gold (6:20, 21, 30). It contained two cherubim of olive-wood, each 10 cubits high (1 Kings 6:16, 20, 21, 23–28) and each having outspread wings of 10 cubits span, so that, since they stood side by side, the wings touched the wall on either side and met in the center of the room. There was a two-leaved door between it and the Holy Place overlaid with gold (2 Chr. 4:22); also a veil of tekhelet (blue), purple, and crimson and fine linen (2 Chr. 3:14; compareExodus 26:33). It had no windows (1 Kings 8:12) and was considered the dwelling-place of the „name” of God.

The color scheme of the veil was symbolic. Blue represented the heavens, while red or crimson represented the earth. Purple, a combination of the two colors, represents a meeting of the heavens and the earth.

View of the House with ceiling removed. This image is a rendering of a 3-D computer model.


The Hekhal, or Holy Place, (1 Kings 8:8–10), is also called the „greater house” (2 Chr. 3:5) and the „temple” (1 Kings 6:17); the word also means „palace”, was of the same width and height as the Holy of Holies, but 40 cubits in length. Its walls were lined with cedar, on which were carved figures of cherubim, palm-trees, and open flowers, which were overlaid with gold. Chains of gold further marked it off from the Holy of Holies. The floor of the Temple was of fir-wood overlaid with gold. The door-posts, of olive-wood, supported folding-doors of fir. The doors of the Holy of Holies were of olive-wood. On both sets of doors were carved cherubim, palm-trees, and flowers, all being overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:15 et seq.)


The Hebrew noun hekhal (Hebrew היכל) in Classical Hebrew means „a large building”. This can be either the main building of the Temple in Jerusalem (that is the nave, or sanctuary, of the Temple), or a palace such as the „palace” of Ahab, king of Samaria, or the „palace” of the King of Babylon.


Hekhal is used 80 times in the Massoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Of these, 70 refer to the House of the LORD (in Hebrew Bible בֵּית יְהוָה beit Yahweh), the other 10 are references to palaces. There is no reference to any part of the tabernacle using this term in the Hebrew Bible.

„In the year that king Uzziah died. I saw the LORD sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and His train filled the hekhal (sanctuary).” Isaiah 6:1.

Use in architecture

The Jerusalem Temple

In older English versions of the Bible, including the King James, the term „temple” is used to translate hekhal. In modern versions more reflective of archeological research, the distinction is made of different sections of the whole Temple. Scholars and archeologists generally agree on the structure of Solomon’s Temple as described in 1 Kings 6:3-5, with the main building, the hekhal, in English now sometimes called „the sanctuary,” the devir, the inner sanctuary, and finally the Holy of Holies. This main building of the Temple is depicted on coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt.

This main building was between the outer altar, where most sacrifices were performed, and inside at the far end was the entry to the Holy of Holies, originally containing the Ark of the Covenant. The main hekhal, contained a number of sacred ritual objects including the seven branched candlestick, the inner altar for incense offerings (also called the „Golden Altar”), and the table of the showbread.


The same architectural layout of the temple was adopted in synagogues leading to the hekhal being applied in Sephardi usage to the Ashkenazi Torah ark, the equivalent of the nave.


The Ulam, or porch, acted as an entrance before the Temple on the east (1 Kings 6:3; 2 Chr. 3:4; 9:7). This was 20 cubits long (corresponding to the width of the Temple) and 10 cubits deep (1 Kings 6:3). (ESV 2 Chr. 3:4) notes that this porch was 120 cubits high. The description does not specify whether a wall separated it from the next chamber. In the porch stood the two pillars Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21; 2 Kings 11:14; 23:3), which were 18 cubits in height.


Chambers were built about the Temple on the southern, western and northern sides (1 Kings 6:5–10). These formed a part of the building and were used for storage. They were probably one story high at first; two more may have been added later.


Exterior view of the entire Temple complex as depicted in a 3-D computer model

Closer view of the Inner Court and House as depicted in a 3-D computer model

According to the Bible, two courts surrounded the Temple. The Inner Court (1 Kings 6:36), or Court of the Priests (2 Chr. 4:9), was separated from the space beyond by a wall of three courses of hewn stone, surmounted by cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36). It contained the Altar of burnt-offering (2 Chr. 15:8), the Brazen Sea laver (4:2–5, 10) and ten other lavers (1 Kings 7:38, 39). A brazen altar stood before the Temple (2 Kings 16:14), its dimensions 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high (2 Chr. 4:1). The Great Court surrounded the whole Temple (2 Chr. 4:9). It was here that people assembled to worship. (Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2).

Brazen Sea

The large basin known as the „Brazen Sea” measured 10 cubits wide brim to brim, 5 cubits deep and with a circumference of 30 cubits around the brim, rested on the backs of twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23–26). The Book of Kings gives its capacity as „2,000baths” (90 cubic meters), but Chronicles (2 Chr. 4:5–6) inflates this to three thousand baths (136 cubic meters) and states that its purpose was to afford opportunity for the purification by immersion of the body of the priests.

The lavers, each of which held „forty baths” (1 Kings 7:38), rested on portable holders made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees. The author of the books of the Kings describes their minute details with great interest (1 Kings 7:27–37). Josephus reported that the vessels in the Temple were composed of Orichalcum inAntiquities of the Jews. According to 1 Kings 7:48 there stood before the Holy of Holies a golden altar of incense and a table forshowbread. This table was of gold, as were also the five candlesticks on each side of it. The implements for the care of the candles—tongs, basins, snuffers, and fire-pans—were of gold; and so were the hinges of the doors.


Because of the religious and political sensitivities involved, no archaeological excavations and only limited surface surveys of the Temple Mount have been conducted since Warren’s expedition of 1867-70.There is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon’s Temple. This building is not mentioned in surviving extra-biblical accounts.

  • In 2007, artifacts dating to the 8th to 6th centuries BCE were described as being possibly the first physical evidence of human activity at the Temple Mount during the First Temple period. The findings included animal bones; ceramic bowl rims, bases, and body sherds; the base of a juglet used to pour oil; the handle of a small juglet; and the rim of a storage jar.
  • By 2006, the Temple Mount Sifting Project had recovered numerous artifacts dating from the 8th to 7th centuries BCE from soil removed in 1999 by the Islamic Religious Trust (Waqf) from the Solomon’s Stables area of the Temple Mount. These include stone weights for weighing silver and a First Temple period bulla, or seal impression, containing ancient Hebrew writing which includes the name Netanyahu ben Yaush. Netanyahu is a name mentioned several times in the Book of Jeremiah while the name Yaush appears in the Lachish letters. However, the combination of names was unknown to scholars.
  • A thumb-sized ivory pomegranate measuring 44 millimetres (1.7 in) in height bearing an ancient Hebrew inscription „Sacred donation for the priests in the House ofYHVH” was believed to have adorned a sceptre used by the high priest in Solomon’s Temple. It was considered the most important item of biblical antiquities in theIsrael Museum’s collection. However, in 2004, the Israel Antiquities Authority reported the inscription to be a forgery, though the ivory pomegranate itself was dated to the 14th or 13th century BCE. This was based on the report’s claim that 3 incised letters in the inscription stopped short of an ancient break, as they would have if carved after the ancient break was made. Since then, it has been proven that one of the letters was indeed carved prior to the ancient break, and the status of the other two letters is now in question. Some paleographers and others have continued to insist that the inscription is ancient and the authenticity of this artifact is still the object of discussion.
  • Another artifact, the Jehoash Inscription contains a 15-line description of King Jehoash’s ninth-century BCE restoration of the Temple. Its authenticity was called into question by a report by the Israel Antiquities Authority, which said that the surface patina contained microfossils of foraminifera. As these fossils do not dissolve in water, they cannot occur in a calcium carbonate patina, leading initial investigators to conclude that the patina must be an artificial chemical mix applied to the stone by forgers. As of late 2012, the academic community is split on whether the table is authentic or not. Commenting on a 2012 report by geologists arguing for the authenticity of the inscription, in October 2012, Hershel Shanks (who believes the inscription is genuine) wrote the current situation was that most Hebrew language scholars believe that the inscription is a forgery and geologists that it is genuine, and thus „Because we rely on experts, and because there is an apparently irresolvable conflict of experts in this case, BAR has taken no position with respect to the authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription.”
  • In 1940 American archaeologist Nelson Glueck „proclaimed … that he had discovered the Edomite mines controlled by King Solomon,” used to construct the Temple’s furnishings. Later in 1997, investigating the role of „metallurgy in [the] social evolution” of Southern Jordan, University of California anthropologist Tom Levy „started probing the site known as Khirbat en Nahas (Arabic for „ruins of copper”).” The samples Levy sent off to „Oxford for radiocarbon dating confirmed that Glueck had been on the right track: This was a tenth-century copper production site ‒ and Levy adds … ‘the closest copper source to Jerusalem.'” In response to these findings archaeologist Amihai Mazar has stated, „I believe that if, one day, we should find the copper objects from the temple in Jerusalem, it will prove to come from this area”.
  • An ostracon sometimes referred to as the House of Yahweh ostracon was discovered at Tel Arad, dated to 6th century BCE which mentions a temple which is probably the Temple in Jerusalem.

Alte articole de interes


17 comentarii (+add yours?)

  1. Tim Dubhy
    ian. 31, 2014 @ 07:53:56

    chiar si daca nu era aceasta descoperire si descifrarea ei, acesti doi mari oameni oricum isi aveau numele inscrise in istorie…si nu s-a pus la indoiala existenta lor… caci istoria ii consemneaza…

  2. Tim Dubhy
    ian. 31, 2014 @ 09:12:41

    si totusi… inainte de aceste descoperiri se stia de existenta lui David si a lui Solomon… ptr ca ele sunt personaje proeminente….
    numai un prost ar pune al indoiala existenta lor..caci istoria i-a consemnat inainte ca arheologia sa ii dovedeasca…
    sunt prea proeminente in istoria poporului evreu, ca sa fie puse la indoiala… insasi steaua lor, scutul lui david, arata ca a existat regele David…si asta poate e cea mai slaba dovada…:)
    hai sa spunem ca punem la indoiala pe un rege mai mic si mai necunoscut…dar NU ai cum sa pui la indoiala pe fondatorii regatului unit si infloritor, apogeul istoriei lor politivce…nu ai cum..asa ai pune la indoiala pe toti contemporanii lui David….
    mie nu imi trebuie in acest punct sa am vreo descoperire arheologica, deoarece David e un personaj cheie in Biblie… este cel din care urma sa vina Mesia… daca eu cred in Mesia, fara sa il fi vazut, cred si in existenta inaintasului Sau, david, fara sa am nevoie de vreo descoperire…
    xa si istoric, constat in ultima vreme ca istoria e plina de minciuni, e scrisa de invingatori, si numai porstii pot pune la indoiala ceva ce daca nu ar exista, nu ar exista insasi o parte din istoria lumii!!!
    La asta ma refer! 🙂

    • rodi
      ian. 31, 2014 @ 09:25:20

      te inteleg Tim, dar sunt necrestini care ne citesc blogul (in special Americani), dar ce ma uimeste mai mult sunt evrei secularisti care neaga existenta acestor persoane daca nu au dovezi arheologice ca u existat cu adevarat. Deci ei nu cred nici scrierile lor. Dar de ce sa ne uimim, cand vedem copii ai crestinilor pierzandu-si credinta la facultate cand profesorii ii indoctrineaza cu aceeasi idee ca daca nu poti dovedi fizic, atunci nu s-a intamplat, cand e vorba ori de existenta unei persoane, sau de creatia universului.

      Ii mai vad pe acesti necredinciosi/atei pe fisierele mele la youtube cum tot neaga, neaga, dar unii vin zile la rand si tot argumenteaza si le vad nelinistea din sufletul lor, pentru ca ei nu au o siguranta in ceea ce cred.

      Pe noi, Dumnezeu ne-a binecuvantat cu aceasta siguranta, desi nu Il vedem fizic si doar ne incredintam in El si in promisiunile Lui. Mi-e mila de cei necredinciosi pentru ca ei sufera si aici, dar mai rau, vor suferi pentru eternitate. Dumnezeu sa aiba mila de cunoscutii nostri cu inimile impietrite, sa-si deschida ochii si sa-L primeasca pe singurul Mantuitor care poate sa-i impace cu Dumnezeu si sa le asigure Mantuirea.

      ….acesta este unul dintre motivele pt. care postez mult material de apologetica. Stiu ca este nevoie de el si stiu ca pana si postarile mai vechi au vizitatori saptamanal, unele chiar zilnic, ca exista putin material in scris, mai mult se gasesc doar fisiere video.

      • Tim Dubhy
        ian. 31, 2014 @ 09:40:29

        inteleg ce spui… dar ptr mine ceea ce fac cei ce incep sa sii nege parte importanta din istorie, ca si inexistenta, nici macar ca si controversata, ma face sa ma crucesc!
        ai dreptate…sunt multi in zilele noastre care neaga tot si traiesc in confuzie mare… pe de-o parte ii inteleg..deoarece si pe mine ma incearca de multe ori indoiala „Oare sa fie cum cred? Sau sa fie ce zic dovezile stiintifice si ce zice toata informatia vasta din zilele noastre?” … dar, daca ar fi asa, degeaba ar fi totul si ar deveni totul non-sens..
        deci cred ca pe cei confuzi si „negatori” ii „ajuta” (mai degraba ii neajuta in realitate!) contextul in care traim in zilele de astazi… si ma refer la vastitatea informatiei, la informatiile ce se bat cap in cap, la informatiile pe care le negam doar ptr ca nu se potrivesc cu ratiunea noastra limitata si cu sistemul nostru de gandire, minciunilem lupp hrapareti care umbla sa manipuleze prin mincini care au in ele parti de adevar, adevar care devine msitificat si vandut ca gogosi…etc…

  3. Tim Dubhy
    ian. 31, 2014 @ 09:19:10

    evreii care isi contesta inaintasul lor glorios, parte a istoriei fara de care nici ei nu ar fi existat, sunt niste prosti…. sa iti contestezi istoria care te face sa ai identitate, e o prostie…e ca si cum si noi am spune ca nu a existat Decebal, Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul..ori, asta e o prostie

  4. Tim Dubhy
    ian. 31, 2014 @ 12:24:06

    un zambet amar in coltul gurii…

    Messianic Restorer Mna, aveam mari dubii că cei doi ar fi existat. Acum, citind nuş ce material al unui tip pe care nu-l cunoaşte nimeni, nici măcar vecinii lui de scară, mă simt mai liniştit: Da, thank God, David şi fiu-său au existat!!!

    Tim Dubhy nu-i asa?:)))

    Tim Dubhy insa, realitatea este ca, chiar si unii evrei pun la indoiala existenta lui David sau Solomon…asa mi-a spus Rodi, cea care a postat acest articol si care sta in USA… ceea ce mie mi se pare absurd, deroarece daca il scoti pe David din istorie, nu numai ca dispare stralucirea Israelului antic, dar diapare si identitatea lor si, mai ales, speranta lor mesianica, Mesia urmand sa vina din dinastia lui David (pentru cei ce inca Il asteapta, nerecunoscandu-L pe Yeshua ca Mesia al lor!)

    • rodi
      ian. 31, 2014 @ 12:30:37

      multumesc pentru zambet 🙂
      tatal meu a fost in Israel cu cativa ani in urma, sa inlocuiasca pastorul de acolo pentru vreo 2 luni si a fost socat de ateismul unora dintre evrei, chiar remarca ca propovaduirea evangheliei era tabu pentru ca era considerata prozelitism. Dar ce m-a socat si mai tare e cazul acelui evreu mesianic din America care a fost arestat recent pentru prozelitism in timpul vizitei lui in Israel.

  5. Tim Dubhy
    ian. 31, 2014 @ 14:10:46

    readau si restul conversatiei cu prietenul meu.. poate mai da vreun indiciu ajutator celor ce au nevoie…

    Messianic Restorer Loool, dragule, asta e ştire târzie! Evreii au uneori o capacitate formidabilă de a smulge înfrângerea din ghearele victoriei, vorba lui Churchill

    Tim Dubhy cum adica „Evreii au uneori o capacitate formidabilă de a smulge înfrângerea din ghearele victorie”?

    Messianic Restorer Comit acţiuni care se întorc împotriva lor.

    Tim Dubhy adica isi neaga o parte din istorie ca un paradox, nedandu-si seama ca asta se intoarce impotriva lor si ca aceasta ii face sa para ridicoli si chiar prosti?

    Messianic Restorer Auzi… 80% dintre israeliţi sunt atei: cam ce-ţi spune chestia asta?..

    Tim Dubhy ca au ajuns asa de confuzi, incat unii cad in capcana de a-si nega pana si inaintasii..:))

    • rodi
      ian. 31, 2014 @ 14:29:33

      80% atei, hmm, se incred in abilitatile lor si nu vad mana lui Dumnezeu la lucru, mana care-i protejeaza ca sa supravietuiasca in Orientul Mijlociu.

      • Tim Dubhy
        ian. 31, 2014 @ 14:33:00

        atat timp cat ei refuza solutia lui Dumnezeu pentru ei, pe Yeshua Mashiach, lipsite de inteleciune si sinucigase nu trebuie sa ne mai mire!

  6. Tim Dubhy
    feb. 09, 2014 @ 02:01:32

    • rodi
      feb. 09, 2014 @ 08:19:44

      si totusi unii evrei nu vor sa creada din cauza impietrii izvorata din ateismul lor.

      • Tim Dubhy
        feb. 09, 2014 @ 11:31:51

        si ca sa vezi „noaptea mintii”, dau doua exemple din seria „Evreii sunt primii care-şi bat cuie în talpă”…

        1. Solomon ca personaj istoric
        „Din punct de vedere arheologic și istoric, redatarea acestor orașe de la epoca lui Solomon la perioada omridă are implicații enorme. Ea înlătură singura dovadă arheologică după care ar fi existat vreodată o monarhie unită cu capitala în Ierusalim și arată că David și Solomon erau, în termeni politici, nimic altceva decât căpitani ai ținutului deluros, a căror rază administrativă era limitată la nivelul local, adică la ținutul deluros.”
        —Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and The Origin of Its Sacred Texts.

        Conform lui Finkelstein și Silberman, Solomon nu ar fi fost rege și nu ar fi avut un regat, descrierea din Biblie a regatului său imaginar descriind de fapt domnia lui Manase ca vasal al Asiriei:
        „Considerând problema sub toate aspectele, avem o situație în care condițiile descrise ca fiind din marele regat al lui Solomon seamănă foarte mult cu cele din ținutul regelui Manase. Districte bine administrate și un mare număr de lucrători de corvoadă clădind noi orașe regale; legături comerciale cu lideri străini; caravane către nord trecând prin teritoriul Iudei și ambasadori din Arabia aflați în Ierusalim – care sunt combinate cu amintiri neclare, împrumutate din zilele de glorie ale comerțului din Israelul aflat la nord – toate susțin credința în vechimea și înțelepciunea strategiei regelui Manase de participare înflăcărată la comerțul și diplomația imperiale.”
        —Israel Finkelstein și Neil Asher Silberman, David and Solomon. In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.

        Pentru teza conform căreia Solomon ar fi avut un regat nu există dovezi arheologice. Nu a fost găsită nicio urmă a Templului lui Solomon.

        2. „Ze’ev Herzog a formulat multe din teoriile pe care Finkelstein și Silberman le prezintă în cartea lor: «Israelienii nu au fost niciodată în Egipt, nu au rătăcit prin deșert, nu au cucerit țara [Canaan] într-o campanie militară și nu au lăsat-o moștenire celor douăsprezece triburi ale lui Israel. Probabil cel mai greu de acceptat este faptul că regatul unit al lui David și Solomon, descris în Biblie ca putere regională, era cel mult un mic regat tribal.» Noile teorii văd acestă modestă căpitănie de plai bazată în Ierusalim drept un oraș de văcari, dar nu drept capitală glorioasă a unui imperiu.

        Deși, cum observă Herzog, unele din aceste descoperiri au fost acceptate de ani de zile sau chiar de decenii de către majoritatea arheologilor și cercetătorilor Bibliei, ele de-abia acum intră în conștiința publicului israelian — public care este puternic afectat de ele.”
        —Laura Miller, King David was a nebbish

        Iata deci cum isi neaga evreii propria istorie si, astfel, si identitate istorica!!

        • rodi
          feb. 09, 2014 @ 13:39:39

          asta e nebunia postmodernismului care reinterpreteaza totul dupa placul si filosofia lor si uite asa incep oamenii sa-si nege propria istorie. In SUA de mult a inceput aceasta propaganda si iata din acest motiv ca se va repeta istoria din nou si din nou, pentru ca ne-o negam istoria si experientele proprii. Ce nebunie…

  7. Trackback: Dovezi privind existenta celui mai mare rege antic al Israelului, regele David | agnus dei - english + romanian blog
Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari

%d blogeri au apreciat: