Archaeological evidence of David’s kingdom
The recent archaeological discovery of a fortified wall in southern Israel shows the accuracy of the Biblical story that David ruled a powerful kingdom in the 10th century B.C. It also reignites ongoing controversy among those who reject the idea that such a kingdom ever existed, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
Skeptics of the Biblical narrative point to a lack of archaeological evidence that David and his son Solomon ruled over a united kingdom in Israel. If such a kingdom existed, they say, it wasn’t the mighty empire portrayed by the Bible. They also claim the kingdom of Judah in southern Israel only began to wield any influence at all in the ninth century B.C.
The Old Testament book of 2 Chronicles describes Lachish, the site where archaeologists found the wall, as one of the cities fortified by Solomon’s son King Rehoboam, who ruled Judah in roughly the late 10th century B.C. The discovery bolsters the arguments that Rehoboam fortified the city and that a united and powerful kingdom under David and Solomon was already established by the time of his reign. Carbon dating of olive pits unearthed at the wall dates it to exactly Rehoboam’s time.
“We have discovered that Lachish was a fortified city and that it was established around the year 920 B.C.E.,” Yossi Garfinkel, head of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology, told Haaretz. —J.B.
Comments
RC
Posted: Fri, 05/03/2019 09:58 am“Scientist once thought…” and “… technological advances in …”
These two statements mean that most of scientific truth, is wrong. Most prior “truths” are going to get over turned by advances in methods of discovery. So don’t get too caught up believing in what people think is scientific truth. Don’t get me wrong, science has made great strides to make life better, it is just that the “truths” don’t last very long.
Lowell W
Posted: Fri, 05/03/2019 02:47 pmJulie, that last sentence is udderly ridiculous. :)
West Coast Gramma
Posted: Wed, 05/08/2019 03:16 pmI admit that I had to read the last paragraph, which consists of two sentences, three times to understand what at first reading appears self-contradictory. After doing so, I concluded that the last sentence reflects what may be the actual situation--that manufacturers are calling non-dairy products "milk," and that the dairy industry objects to this (and rightly so.) This being the case, I judge that the first sentence of that two sentence paragraph is unclear in its implications, rather than the second. The first sentence leads the reader to believe that the FDA finds a problem with milk, and the second sentence leads the reader to conclude that non-dairy products calling themselves "milk" is the problem. So which is it?