whats under solomons temple?

[LRW]

No, it actually means "Lonely Moon" : SOLO MON.

Or something like Oh Solo Mio, maybe?

It's true, I tell ya.

Solomon masc. proper name, Biblical name of David's son, king of Judah and Israel and wisest of all men, from Gk. Solomon, from Heb. Sh'lomoh, from shelomo "peaceful," from shalom "peace." The Arabic form is Suleiman. The common medieval form was Salomon (Vulgate, Tyndale, Douai); Solomon was used in Geneva Bible and KJV. Used allusively for "a wise ruler" since 1550s. (Emphasis added).

http://www.etymonlin...hp?term=Solomon

. .

Lol in comes christendom and their converted subjects citing the dogma of christendom.

The dogma must be destroyed, your dogma belongs in the garbage can, because thats all its fit for.

[Abramelin]

You have a thing with Christendom, that much we understand.

[cormac mac airt]

Lol in comes christendom and their converted subjects citing the dogma of christendom.

The dogma must be destroyed, your dogma belongs in the garbage can, because thats all its fit for.

With the above it looks like we have another winner, congratulations:

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Whoo-hoo! A well-deserved Fractal Wrongness Award for LRW!

Lego-linguistics are not going to help you, LRW. Inventing toxic and inappropriate Christian-hating flotsam does not forward your cause. Indeed, it makes you seem even less credible.

Please refer to Post 309 and note Swede's correct etymology for the name Solomon. This spelling of the name is a modern Western convention adapted from the ancient Greek. It does not reflect how the name was spoken in ancient Israel. The name was pronounced something like Sh'lomoh. To this day Sh'lomoh happens to be a pretty common Jewish name.

I happen to agree that Solomon probably didn't exist, but my argument would be based on archaeological and textual evidence. I have no idea where your approach comes from. It takes more than a dislike of modern religions to come across as sensible and convincing.

[kmt_sesh]

I posted the above and only subsequently noticed LRW has been banned. It seems a lot has happened today, while I was away from the forum. Please learn from my mistake, and do not bother replying to any of LRW's posts. There's no reason to.

Thanks.

[Karyotype]

just curious, at what age can we no longer revive threads?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

just curious, at what age can we no longer revive threads?

I honestly didn't know there was a rule about not reviving old threads.

[cormac mac airt]

I honestly didn't know there was a rule about not reviving old threads.

I don't believe there is any rule against reviving old threads. But it would probably be better if after say, 18 to 24 months, starting a new thread. The idea behind the original thread is no longer fresh and many of the posters are probably not around, or interested, any longer.

cormac

[Golden Duck]

With the above it looks like we have another winner, congratulations:

cormac

Infinitely wrong in the same same area.

[kmt_sesh]

just curious, at what age can we no longer revive threads?

Once they've gone off to college and have freed us from their terror.

Just kidding.

Necroposting is not an action popular with many posters, but there are legitimate means to do so. There's no real age limit in place. I'm sometimes surprised to see threads that are years old pop up again. First, however, are reasons to avoid necroposting. Never do so just for the sake of bumping a thread back into the active queue of the forum. This is against UM's policies. Also, avoid the urge to do so if the comment you wish to contribute really doesn't add to the merits of the thread. Something like "This is cool and I agree" is not a post worth reading and can, in fact, be regarded as bumping. Also, don't reply to a post in a thread that was posted years ago. I see this quite often and it's irritating. The poster who wrote the original post might not even be around any longer.

Any old thread can be brought back to life at any time so long as the post you wish to contribute is relevant to the topic and adds something worth reading. I myself do not like to see old threads necroposted, but as long as the new post is relevant and adds to the overall topic, I for one see no reason to act against it.

Sorry for the diatribe. I know you didn't ask for half of this information, but it gave me a good opportunity to remind posters about the nature of necroposting.

Editing to add: I just saw cormac's Post 317 and realized this is something I should've added. In some cases, if a thread has caught your eye but it's years old and seen no activity since Moses was young, it might be worth considering starting a new thread. Ask cormac. He remembers when Moses was young.

Edited January 6, 2013 by kmt_sesh

[docyabut2]

There may have been a temple of David`s and Solomon`s built before the Muslims Temple the Dome of the Rock, the large flat expanse was a base for a temple.

Edited January 6, 2013 by docyabut2

[questionmark]

There may have been a temple of Solomon`s built before the Muslims Temple, the large flat expanse was a base for a temple.

it was, but not for Salomon's temple but for Herod's the Great's Temple. Before that there was a much smaller temple build after the Babylonian Exile there and after it a Temple built by Julian the Apostate who tried to bring back Judaism as counterweight to Christianism. That temple was used as Christian church until the Muslims took over the place. No trace of Salomon's temple has been found there, below those foundations is an ancient fortress/palace.

Edited January 6, 2013 by questionmark

[Karyotype]

Once they've gone off to college and have freed us from their terror.

Just kidding.

Necroposting is not an action popular with many posters, but there are legitimate means to do so. There's no real age limit in place. I'm sometimes surprised to see threads that are years old pop up again. First, however, are reasons to avoid necroposting. Never do so just for the sake of bumping a thread back into the active queue of the forum. This is against UM's policies. Also, avoid the urge to do so if the comment you wish to contribute really doesn't add to the merits of the thread. Something like "This is cool and I agree" is not a post worth reading and can, in fact, be regarded as bumping. Also, don't reply to a post in a thread that was posted years ago. I see this quite often and it's irritating. The poster who wrote the original post might not even be around any longer.

Any old thread can be brought back to life at any time so long as the post you wish to contribute is relevant to the topic and adds something worth reading. I myself do not like to see old threads necroposted, but as long as the new post is relevant and adds to the overall topic, I for one see no reason to act against it.

Sorry for the diatribe. I know you didn't ask for half of this information, but it gave me a good opportunity to remind posters about the nature of necroposting.

Editing to add: I just saw cormac's Post 317 and realized this is something I should've added. In some cases, if a thread has caught your eye but it's years old and seen no activity since Moses was young, it might be worth considering starting a new thread. Ask cormac. He remembers when Moses was young.

i did not mean to drag Moses into this, I really was just curious. My thought for what it's worth would be if the thread was over say a year or so old, perhaps starting a new thread my be the better option.

[cormac mac airt]

Once they've gone off to college and have freed us from their terror.

Just kidding.

Necroposting is not an action popular with many posters, but there are legitimate means to do so. There's no real age limit in place. I'm sometimes surprised to see threads that are years old pop up again. First, however, are reasons to avoid necroposting. Never do so just for the sake of bumping a thread back into the active queue of the forum. This is against UM's policies. Also, avoid the urge to do so if the comment you wish to contribute really doesn't add to the merits of the thread. Something like "This is cool and I agree" is not a post worth reading and can, in fact, be regarded as bumping. Also, don't reply to a post in a thread that was posted years ago. I see this quite often and it's irritating. The poster who wrote the original post might not even be around any longer.

Any old thread can be brought back to life at any time so long as the post you wish to contribute is relevant to the topic and adds something worth reading. I myself do not like to see old threads necroposted, but as long as the new post is relevant and adds to the overall topic, I for one see no reason to act against it.

Sorry for the diatribe. I know you didn't ask for half of this information, but it gave me a good opportunity to remind posters about the nature of necroposting.

Editing to add: I just saw cormac's Post 317 and realized this is something I should've added. In some cases, if a thread has caught your eye but it's years old and seen no activity since Moses was young, it might be worth considering starting a new thread. Ask cormac. He remembers when Moses was young.

Yeah, back then he went by the name Bob.

cormac

[qwertyuiopasdfghjkl]

al aqsa may be short for al aqsa martyrs brigade which is a coalation of pallestinian nationalist militias from the west bank it could also refer to al-aqsa mosque in jerusalam which the group get there name from

[Ruby123]

It was probably the actual burial ground for the " Jesus of Nazareth", Which is just to take control of most of the public which they have done with theories that they have found great powers underneath it. all these worldly events are just to take away your focus. from the battle between yourself

[kmt_sesh]

It was probably the actual burial ground for the " Jesus of Nazareth", Which is just to take control of most of the public which they have done with theories that they have found great powers underneath it. all these worldly events are just to take away your focus. from the battle between yourself

Welcome to UM, Ruby123.

It's an unlikely burial place of any sort because Hebrews in antiquity buried their dead outside their cities and villages, and the Temple Mount was part of the ancient City of David at that time.

[wimfloppp]

was solomon the son of david

[woopypooky]

solomon's ring?

the ring that can summon the devil to make a pact and win you a country.

[questionmark]

solomon's ring?

the ring that can summon the devil to make a pact and win you a country.

certainly not, the ring is as fictional as the character.

[kmt_sesh]

certainly not, the ring is as fictional as the character.

Besides which, if we stick to the readings of the Old Testament—which is the only place where Solomon really exists—his father, David, had already won the country.

Edited June 17, 2013 by kmt_sesh
Correcting bad grammer.

[+DieChecker]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomon actually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone (The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

[questionmark]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomonactually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone(The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

If there was such a thing at all it certainly was not in J'lem. That was a two cow town until the Assyrians took over Samaria (~ 722 B.C.). By then, should this Salomon have existed, he certainly would not have been able to build anything. If you are looking for a temple look in Samaria. J'lem grew to a sizeable town after that point in time, with the usual friction created by the refugees and the locals. And a common legend that had to be created to reconcile those frictions.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I've always thought all that was under the temple was Solomon's dunny.

[Abramelin]

I tend to agree with Questionmark. There is no evidence that the Temple of Solomonactually existed. It supposedly was torn down by the Babylonians, I believe. Also it was very small. Meant to be a permanent structure to replace the Tabernacle tent. Also the exact location of Solomon's Temple is not known. It could have been anywhere on the mount, and probably was torn down and had the stone reused.

To my knowledge there has never been any secret tunnels found under the Mount. The water tunnels and cisterns are all well documented. One such cistern actually is right next to the Rock, inside the Dome of the Rock, and is called the Well of Souls. And this may have been where stuff got buried way back when, but it has been fully excevated for centuries.

There is some evidence to show that the Foundation Stone(The "Rock" of the Dome of the Rock), actually is where the Ark of the Covenant would have sat in the Second Temple, but the Ark was lost by that time, and there was a masonry "ark" that sat there as a reminder.

Indeed there's no real evidence the Temple of Solomon ever existed, but the Bible goes into great detail describing the construction of a building that 'never existed':

http://www.lgic.org/...ians_temple.php

What's interesting you mention this Well: when the Phoenicians built a temple, they always built it over a (sacred) well, and in the front of the temple they erected two pillars, the ones called Jachin and Boaz in the Bible.

These pillars were called "Pillars of Melqart" by the Phoenicians, but most certainly they were not called that way by the Hebrews. The Greeks always equated Melqart with Hercules, and so those pillars were later called "Pillars of Hercules", a name later adopted for the Strait of Gibraltar.

The Phoenician colony in Iberia, Gader (Gaderia/Cadiz) also had such a temple built by the Phoenicians, and it was also built over a well, and also with two pillars in front of it. The alternative name the Phoenicians used for Gader was "Qadesh", which meant "Holy" or "Holy Place", the same alternative Arab name for Jerusalem, "Al Quds".

The Romans used this alternative name, Qadesh, which in their language became Gades, and much later Cadiz.

.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Abramelin