Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Evidence of the Babylonian conquest found

888 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Pettytalk
On 8/11/2019 at 1:29 PM, Still Waters said:

Researchers digging at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte's ongoing archaeological excavation on Mount Zion in Jerusalem have announced a second significant discovery from the 2019 season—clear evidence of the Babylonian conquest of the city from 587/586 BCE.

The discovery is of a deposit including layers of ash, arrowheads dating from the period, as well as Iron Age potsherds, lamps and a significant piece of period jewelry—a gold and silver tassel or earring. There are also signs of a significant Iron Age structure in the associated area, but the building, beneath layers from later periods, has yet to be excavated.

The team believes that the newly-found deposit can be dated to the specific event of the conquest because of the unique mix of artifacts and materials found.

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-evidence-babylonian-conquest-jerusalem-mount.html

Still waters run deep, but apparently this thread you started is very shallow, as no one deigned it worthy for further and deeper discussion. I am surprised that with so many "shovel jockeys", as some call themselves, they did not elect to put in their two cents in this archeological oriented thread.

But let me ask you this. After briefly reading the article you linked, it seems to me that there is some allusion that the initial findings are perhaps indicating that the Bible account of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem may be historically corroborative? 

Or perhaps I was making too much of the article in this Biblical respect. If this is the case, what was your scope for discussion in providing the linked article?

I think it's rude that an OP should not have at least one response. And this is also my intent in responding with this post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Well, off the top of my head there’s evidence that there was a period where Judea wasn’t occupied by a thriving Iron Age community sandwiched between periods where it was a thriving Iron Age community, so something had to have happened.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
8 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Bible account of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem may be historically corroborative? 

Probably, with the usual Biblical exaggeration. Palestine was always the possession of one empire or another.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Yes I believe Jerusalem has undergone sixteen sieges - that are known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sieges

Sieges were very popular version of a 'reality' show back then.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell

Did anyone find a stone with the inscription "We Babylonians wrought this destruction?" Or was any evidence discovered that any Babylonians were present there at all?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 8/30/2019 at 5:34 AM, Ell said:

Did anyone find a stone with the inscription "We Babylonians wrought this destruction?" Or was any evidence discovered that any Babylonians were present there at all?

I'm not sure of a stone being found, but Yahweh predicted years in advance the destruction of Israel for its idol worship. Also, there were arrows of both combatants found at the site along with other artifacts found by archeologist. Not to mention, the historian Josephus chronicled this event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
58 minutes ago, larryp said:

I'm not sure of a stone being found, but Yahweh predicted years in advance the destruction of Israel for its idol worship. Also, there were arrows of both combatants found at the site along with other artifacts found by archeologist. Not to mention, the historian Josephus chronicled this event.

Are you sure it wasn’t idle worship? Y-H-W-H being a fan of active participation in worship.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
1 hour ago, larryp said:

I'm not sure of a stone being found, but Yahweh predicted years in advance the destruction of Israel for its idol worship. Also, there were arrows of both combatants found at the site along with other artifacts found by archeologist. Not to mention, the historian Josephus chronicled this event.

Yahweh also had graven images before the Babylonian captivity.

60160460_YahwehAstaroth.jpg.643b8a23880659ba310d220dbc8992b2.jpg

Here is a rock painting depiction of Yahweh and Astaroth from Kuntillet Arjud.  Suffice to say, vested interests have gone to a lot of trouble to destroy all depictions of Yahweh.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
21 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Are you sure it wasn’t idle worship? Y-H-W-H being a fan of active participation in worship.  

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't idle because Yahweh had forbidden Israel from associating him with any imagery - Period. Yes, Yahweh craves worship that he sooo much deserves.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
1 hour ago, larryp said:

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't idle because Yahweh had forbidden Israel from associating him with any imagery - Period. Yes, Yahweh craves worship that he sooo much deserves.

That's my understanding too.  I couldn't quote bible or scripture but I was brought up as a Catholic believing that God created man in His own image to worship Him.

Think about that.  You're an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnieverything superbeing.  Buy you're alone and crave company.  So you build a universe: well, maybe an infinite number of universes, each with different cosmic constants, just to see how they play out.  And in one of them conditions are right for a species of semi-intelligent lifeforms to arise who call themselves humans.  So you (with an infinite other universes to inspect but also an infinite ability to do so) decide to play with one particular tribe.  You tease them, you appear as a burning bush, you talk from clouds and stuff and generally manage to confuse them (as if they aren't struggling enough with daily existence).

Later, (after several centuries distracted by more exciting events in other universes?) you return to ours and notice that the Romans have conquered Judea and the group you were training up have gone a bit awry.  So you chat up a virgin called Mary, get her pregnant with a Son who is You, and thus try to right all that is wrong with this creation of Yours.

Maybe it's my limited understanding of a strict Catholic upbringing; maybe it's my decades of free-thinking since I 'lost my faith', but does any of this sound a wee bit implausible to you?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
22 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

That's my understanding too.  I couldn't quote bible or scripture but I was brought up as a Catholic believing that God created man in His own image to worship Him.

The current doctrinal position adopted by both mainstream Catholicism and Judaism is that “in His own image” refers to the ability to self-determine a moral code.... which leads to a certain irony about this:

22 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Think about that.  You're an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnieverything superbeing.  Buy you're alone and crave company.  So you build a universe: well, maybe an infinite number of universes, each with different cosmic constants, just to see how they play out.  And in one of them conditions are right for a species of semi-intelligent lifeforms to arise who call themselves humans.  So you (with an infinite other universes to inspect but also an infinite ability to do so) decide to play with one particular tribe.  You tease them, you appear as a burning bush, you talk from clouds and stuff and generally manage to confuse them (as if they aren't struggling enough with daily existence).

You make a deal deal with a certain group in exchange for worship and obedience to a 616 point moral code you’ll favour them.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 8/25/2019 at 12:25 AM, Pettytalk said:

Still waters run deep, but apparently this thread you started is very shallow, as no one deigned it worthy for further and deeper discussion. I am surprised that with so many "shovel jockeys", as some call themselves, they did not elect to put in their two cents in this archeological oriented thread.

But let me ask you this. After briefly reading the article you linked, it seems to me that there is some allusion that the initial findings are perhaps indicating that the Bible account of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem may be historically corroborative? 

It's actually not a real bone of contention.  We know from other records that there were multiple takeovers of the area, including by Egypt and Babylon and Rome.  But the city is layer upon layer of collapsed buildings and trash and dirt and everything else.  Sorting and dating layers is a challenge.

The documents that make up the Bible were not collected records from the cities themselves, but rather narratives of families and generations.  Your family stories may tell something about life in (say) Pennsylvania (like my family stories) but that doesn't mean they'd provide a reliable record of the history of Pennsylvania or locations or anything else.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
On 8/24/2019 at 11:25 PM, Pettytalk said:

Still waters run deep, but apparently this thread you started is very shallow, as no one deigned it worthy for further and deeper discussion. I am surprised that with so many "shovel jockeys", as some call themselves, they did not elect to put in their two cents in this archeological oriented thread.

But let me ask you this. After briefly reading the article you linked, it seems to me that there is some allusion that the initial findings are perhaps indicating that the Bible account of the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem may be historically corroborative? 

Or perhaps I was making too much of the article in this Biblical respect. If this is the case, what was your scope for discussion in providing the linked article?

I think it's rude that an OP should not have at least one response. And this is also my intent in responding with this post.

The bible is based on historical texts, after all.  And now you've turned an archeology post into a religious debate.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

The bible is based on historical texts, after all.  And now you've turned an archeology post into a religious debate.

I think you have made too much of it. I was not debating anything, as I simply posed questions to Still Waters.

The section this post is in is Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History. But if you feel that this is an archeology post, then please notify Still Waters and ask her why she did not post this in Palaeontology, Archaeology & History; Prehistoric, historical and archaeological mysteries?

And just what is it that you have contributed to this thread with your baseless observation and silly remark, archeologically speaking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
11 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

I think you have made too much of it. I was not debating anything, as I simply posed questions to Still Waters.

The section this post is in is Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History. But if you feel that this is an archeology post, then please notify Still Waters and ask her why she did not post this in Palaeontology, Archaeology & History; Prehistoric, historical and archaeological mysteries?

And just what is it that you have contributed to this thread with your baseless observation and silly remark, archeologically speaking?

OK.  I stand corrected - Ancient Mysteries or Alternative history, not archeology, though it seems like archeology news to me.

I do find this interesting but I am not going to waste my time if the thread is going to devolve into a discussion about what is and is not in the bible or what that means.  I don't understand why you even brought it up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

And just what is it that you have contributed to this thread with your baseless observation and silly remark, archeologically speaking?

Pot Kettle award AGAIN!!! :lol:

You racking them up telegraphing yourself on others. :yes:

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

OK.  I stand corrected - Ancient Mysteries or Alternative history, not archeology, though it seems like archeology news to me.

I do find this interesting but I am not going to waste my time if the thread is going to devolve into a discussion about what is and is not in the bible or what that means.  I don't understand why you even brought it up.

I believe if you review the posts you should see and understand that it's not my initial question that has caused religion to be brought into the thread, because it's others here that have done that. It's obvious that you don't understand why I asked the question to Still Waters, although you did mention that the Bible is an historical text. And this is puzzling, since it was the very reason why I asked the question to begin with. I asked if the archeological find may or may not corroborate the historical events that are stipulated from the accounts told in the Bible of that particular Babylonian conquest of Israel, of which it was mentioned in the article posted by Still Waters.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

The bible is based on historical texts, after all.  And now you've turned an archeology post into a religious debate.

No, it's not. It's really not. It's a book of propaganda: hey, look! these dudes did what we told them to, and god gave them puppies and gold. These guys didn't do what we told them to, and now they're impotent and disease-ridden!

The only ones who'll tell you differently have something to sell you.

...or suffer from the delusion they're Plato, but who would listen to a moron doing that?

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
Quote

Is this meant to be a drawing of God (i.e., Yahweh) with his consort Asherah? The scholar who published the chapter about the drawings doesn’t think so. She interprets it as two male deities—probably just the Egyptian god Bes—and not as a drawing of God and his goddess wife. Other scholars disagree, but this much is clear: The drawing was added to the pithos after the inscription was written, so the two may be completely unrelated.

Source

The drawing post-dates the inscription on that depiction of Yahweh (the idea that it even represents Yahweh is disputed by some Archaeologists.)

Could even be some kind of graffiti.

Harte

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 hours ago, Harte said:

Source

The drawing post-dates the inscription on that depiction of Yahweh (the idea that it even represents Yahweh is disputed by some Archaeologists.)

Could even be some kind of graffiti.

Harte

So it could be anything?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
13 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

I believe if you review the posts you should see and understand that it's not my initial question that has caused religion to be brought into the thread, because it's others here that have done that. It's obvious that you don't understand why I asked the question to Still Waters, although you did mention that the Bible is an historical text. And this is puzzling, since it was the very reason why I asked the question to begin with. I asked if the archeological find may or may not corroborate the historical events that are stipulated from the accounts told in the Bible of that particular Babylonian conquest of Israel, of which it was mentioned in the article posted by Still Waters.

Excuse me.  I did read the thread up to your question and I think that your question pushed me over the edge as the bible being used as the measure of what the archeologists found means annoys me.  So, you got my prickly response. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

No, it's not. It's really not. It's a book of propaganda: hey, look! these dudes did what we told them to, and god gave them puppies and gold. These guys didn't do what we told them to, and now they're impotent and disease-ridden!

The only ones who'll tell you differently have something to sell you.

...or suffer from the delusion they're Plato, but who would listen to a moron doing that?

--Jaylemurph

I agree, it is propaganda but the texts used were taken and misinterpreted and mis translated from historical texts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree, it is propaganda but the texts used were taken and misinterpreted and mis translated from historical texts.

I’m curious what you’re basing that on. What sort of texts? 

—Jaylemurph 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
5 hours ago, danydandan said:

So it could be anything?

Well, I doubt it's a loaf of bread, but, yes.

Harte

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.