My dad met Joel in Jerusalem last year. Joel is fairly “traditional” in his understanding of biblical archaeology, I would assume he would support the traditional location, but yes it would be fun to hear his view!
Nah, Cornuke (bless his heart) ignored the obvious data for fringe theory on that one. I’ve also been too temple zero three times, there is zero archeological evidence of a mega structure ever existing in that area. The stuff from the second temple is all around the area he suggests as the temple area.
Why is Temple zero being referred to as a cult site? If it is the temple of Mekelzadec king and priest of El Elyon, it's hardly a cult site, at least Abraham didn't think so.
I think, a survey of tje tombsarround Jerusalem would point to the Temple being located some place, where the Jewish Quarter is today, not on the Temple Mount. The only evademce of the 10th roan legion is in that area. I think Solomon's pools supplied water to the temple, in that atea.
Dear @David Dothager, first The current Temple Mount is by far the most reasonable location of both the first and second Temple in Jerusalem. I would conclude that according to the evidence, the likelihood that the Temple was located on the Temple Mount is as certain as the idea that Jericho is located At Tell es-Sultan. For both there is not reasonable reason to question these location identifications, and it is established beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. I have never seen any reasonable arguments that give any objective support any of the alternative locations. Be Well, DZ
Dear@@DDDothager, Are you speaking of Norma Robertson ? I am not too familiar with her perspective , but if I understand her correctly, she does not locate the Temple on the present Temple Mount, but instead farther south down from the summit of Mt. Moriah, between the City of David and the present Temple Mount. I would not agree with that location. I think the archaeologists and scholars are correct. I have seen no compelling objective evidence that supports her theory. She seems to believe that Fortress Antonia was not against the Northwestern Wall of the Temple Mount. That is not what I recall from the description of Josephus. Her version of Fortress Antonia appears to be part of the present Temple Mount, which is contrary to how Josephus describes it. I think she may be confusing the Roman fortress beside Herod's palace on the western hill, with the Fortress Antonia. From Josephus I understand that the fortress Antonia was not a Roman fortress, but instead a fortress of the Temple guards and a storage place for the Temple garments of the priests. I think the location she is proposing for the Temple, was actually the location of Solomon's palace complex and the actual location of the Temple was farther up the hill on top of Mt. Moriah, where the present Temple mount is located. I would hold that the evidence for that perspective and location is really very strong and beyond any reasonable doubt. Concerning just exactly were the Temple was located on the Temple Mount is an open question to me. I think it was most likely where the Dome of the Rock is but I am no overwhelmingly set in that location (or the Temple's orientation). Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 i am no expert, all I can tell, is what I can see on the internet. But I can tell, many of tje tombs, from the temple period do not point to the temple mount. Also, the only place they found evadence of the tenth roman legion is in the Jewish Quarter. Norma talked about, , in the video I saw, Solomons pools providing water for the Temple. That makes sence to me. Myself, I would think the Temple was west of the ttemple mount, in the Jewish Quarter.
@@Silverheart1956 I personally have no need for a temple, but It seems to me, that traditions are often based on wrong ideas. If a Temple is to be built, it should be in the proper place.
Why would that that be a disqualifier? Most experts simply say they don’t know? Arabia has strong archeological, local, historical, and biblical evidence for Sinai being there. The main objection is simply that it’s “too far”?
Dear@@bibletruthproject , It is true that most scholars say they are not really certain where Mt. Sinai is specifically located, even though there are many proposed sites. However, some of these proposed sites are rather improbable, so we are actually looking for probable, viable sites. Arabia does have strong, archeological, local, historical, and Biblical evidence for Mt. Sinai being located there, BUT, Saudi Arabia does not. In antiquity, the Sinai Peninsula was considered to be part of Arabia. This is confirmed by many historical texts. When Paul says Mt. Sinai was located in Arabia (Galatians 4:25) He was very likely referring to the Sinai Peninsula. The Gulf of Aqaba is not a viable site for the crossing because it does not fit the Biblical requirements (It is a popularized, fringe theory). One example: When the Israelites crossed the Red (or Reed) Sea, "they went into the wilderness of Shur". (Ex. 15:22). Where is the wilderness of Shur ? We have strong, archeological, local, historical, and Biblical evidence for the location of the Wilderness of Shur. If you conduct a Biblical study of the location of the Wilderness of Shur, we can see that it is in the northern portion of the Sinai Peninsula between the Levant and Egypt. This location has very strong historical precedence. If the Gulf of Aqaba hypothesis were correct, we would have to move the Wilderness of Shur across the Gulf of Aqaba, to the eastern side. I have noticed some supporters of the Saudi Hypothesis have actually moved the Wilderness of Shur to that location, to make the hypothesis fit, as if any geographic feature can be moved at will, to accommodate one's wishes. Moving Mt. Sinai to Saudi Arabia presents many such problems. This is why it is very difficult the find scholars, particularly archaeologists, who support this hypothesis. At this time my favorite proposed location for Mt. Sinai is Gebel Khashm et-Tarif . Associates For Biblical Research (ABR) has some good articles explaining these issues. ABR is an organization of professional Christian Archaeologists who are actively engaged in research and excavations in the Levant. Their primary focus at this time is Tell Shiloh which is the largest excavation in the middle East. Dr. Stripling is the excavation director there and just recently released the huge discovery of the Curse Tablet found on Mt. Ebal. Be Well, DZ
@@Silverheart1956 Fair points, however, someone holding to it should not be a disqualifier. With our group who went in 2019, we also had other academics in the group who also weighed in, I would recommend traveling there and seeing it for yourself. As to the discovery, yes I'm aware of the discovery, I have corresponded with Dr. Stripling via facebook. I also interviewed Aaron Lipkin, who works with Dr. Stripling in Israel. I was just there for three weeks and got back mid May. I got to talk to some of the people who were on the dig where the tablet was discovered. Perhaps I can rope a few of them in for some interviews. Thanks for weighing in.
Dear@@bibletruthproject, Please don't take my words to mean that disqualifies them as a Christian or a person living a life honoring to God. That is certainly not my intention. I have studied the Saudi Arabian hypothesis and I can see no scholarly merit in it and I consider it to be a pop-history, fringe hypothesis that uses the sensationalism to sell the idea. The shallowness of the research bothers me. For example I have seen advocates of the hypothesis, tell people that the bovine petroglyphs may be evidence of the golden calf rebellion against Moses. However, if they would conduct the necessary research on these assertions they would discover that those petroglyphs have been determined by archaeologists, to have existed on site long before Moses was born. They don't seem to do the required due diligence. Skeptics take this shallowness and run, with the assertions of Christian incompetence. Sloppy scholarship hinders the cause of Christ. Ask Dr. Stripling what he thinks about the Saudi Arabian hypothesis. Yes, I am looking forward to the research papers concerning the Curse Tablet find. I am very curious concerning what may be on the outside of the tablet and seeing the text on the inside. Yes I would love to travel to Israel, but my situation with my wife prevents me from doing so. I have close friends who go there regularly. They even brought me some pottery from Shiloh. Be Well, DZ
When the Dome of the Rock was being built in the 7th century, Jewish scholars hailed it as the rebuilt Temple. The Crusaders accepted the Dome of the Rock as the rebuilt Temple. So the issue was resolved over a thousand years ago. The Temple was rebuilt over a thousand years ago. Case closed.
