King Solomon (King Shlomo): If he was great and wealthy could you back it up?
- Thread starter tradingjournals
- Start date
you realize you are lying again. I just gave you this from wikipedia.
It completely contradicts what you wrote.
"Josephus, citing Tyrian court records and Menander in Against Apion, gives a specific year during which Hiram I of Tyre sent materials to Solomon for the construction of the temple.[20] "
Yeah of course. Anyone who questions anything religious is lying. How very unintelligent of you.
Completely contradicts what Iwrote? Still being your ridiculous self then.
It really will be necessary to come up with something far more reliable than one tiny dodgy mention from a purported Josephus text, having already been translated by Christian apologists, who are already proven to have forged other entries.
And how come you didn't "just give this" from the same wiki ?
"However, no material evidence indisputably of Solomon's reign has been found"
"archaeologist Eilat Mazar announced the excavation of what she believes is a 10th-century city wall"
"archaeologist Aren Maeir is dubious about Mazar's dating"
Actually, troll if you read the quote on page 3 of this thread... I did provide the quote in context.
This is pretty funny once again we have Stu pretending he has the bona fides to question the historical nature of a quote in Josephus.
If you have some evidence provide it. The absence of evidence will be proof enough you were lying once again.
You provided the quote sure enough. Your record is quite good for providing quotes that destroy your own ridiculous position.
But after doing that, you decided to.. "just give this" , ... one tiny claim made by a completely insufficient bit of unreliable evidence taken from the quote, quite out of context to the whole.
You seem to think that reasonable, no matter how much it is not, so long as it sounds like you have a clue. Which of course you don't.
It should be clear to anyone with half a brain cell that so called evidence is comparable to Bernie Madoff translating a balance sheet.
You have though provided more than 'some evidence' , in fact incontrovertible evidence, that you can't be civil, and nothing else.
I can't provide any verified archeological or historically valid evidence for a King Solomon or that he had a Temple, because there isn't any.
Neither can you.
Isn't it a fair description considering that was all the series really amounted to? Are you?
You didn't realize you altered what I said? Then I suggest you look at it again.
No they don't.
None measure up to even the minimum standards required to establish archeological or historical artifacts giving credence to any claims made, biblical or other, for a King Solomon or his Temple.
In reality Solomon and a Temple have never been anything more than an elaborate fairy story. A vehicle for the perpetuation of Jewish mythology.