King David's Palace Found

John Stuart Mill also said this Also, did you realize that he was an agnostic. He argued in his Three Essay on Religion that it was impossible for the universe to be governed by an omnipotent god.
Not really the type of guy you want to use to support your arguments Tal.

Off Topic?In response, I don't care.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

I agree it is off topic and I apologize. You try to justify and validate your posts by using questionable and/or irrelevant quotes. Since you bring those into the conversation, I feel that it is legitimate to point out that you are trying to use out of context, incorrect and spurious quotes as your signature to justify your position. The subject itself shouldn't be all that is open for discussion. Once someone uses information like you are that needs to be discussed also.This message has been edited by Theodoric, 08-18-2005 11:45 AM

I've already bowed to some linguini spined peacenicks who didn't like the graphics I had in my signature when I first came to this forum.I took it out.As to the text that is my signature, it is going to be whatever I want within the rules of the forums. If I happen to come across something else that I want as my signature, I'll change it.This message has been edited by Tal, 08-18-2005 12:18 PM

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

quote:

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

---

Great source, but rather long. What about ...

For the 4th time.Off topic.I don't care.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

the statement, premature of facts, i mean.personally, i think it would be awesome if it really was king david's palace. but i'd like that based on evidence, not whimsy.

---

אָרַח

The way archeology works is like this: Archeologist says, "I think X (artifact, bones, building etc) is in place Y based on historical evidence A, B, or Q. So if they find something that looks similiar to X in place Y, they have a pretty good idea that they've found what they are looking for, because after all, they are digging in 1 spot in a 52 Million square mile area (the land mass of the 6 continents on the earth).So they use ancient documents (manuscripts, stone tablets ect) and make educated guesses as to the location of whatever it is they are looking for (a tomb of a pharoh?). If they find something that looks like what they are looking for at that location, they can safely assume that they've found it. Of course they continue to dig and research to either verify or disprove that it was what they were looking for.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

actually that isn't how archaeology works. At times they are looking for something particular, but usually artifacts are found and then a dig is planned to determine exactly what is on the site. For example, I worked on the dig at Tel Gerisa in the early 80's. No one speculated at all at what would be found. All that was known was that it probably had some bronze age artifacts. I remember a the time some biblical archaeologists were hoping to able to use the site as evidence to verify cannaanite stories from the OT. That is not the correct way to do science.
Your argument clearly shows the difference between science and intelligent design. A true scientists doesnt start with the end and then try to find evidence. Rather they look at the evidence and then decide where the evidence points.
A lot of religiously motivated digs operate in the manner you describe.
By the way what historical evidence did she use to determine to dig there for David's palace.

Yes, that is one way archeology works. Page not found - Archaeological Institute of America
The bibleThis message has been edited by Tal, 08-19-2005 02:37 PM

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

Monk, love the image. Where did you find it?Chris

Planet Smilies

quote:

---

By the way what historical evidence did she use to determine to dig there for David's palace.

​

The bible

---

From the article you linked to in the original post (my bold):

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

this works for cities.for instance, we know roughly where troy was rumored to be for a long time, but hadn't managed to find it. when we found a city in the right place, from the right times, that roughly matched homer's description, it was announced that troy had been found. now, the archaeologist may or may not have been looking for troy at the time (i suspect so, but i'm not a greek history buff).this is very different than saying "we found helen of troy's bed chamber!" one is a reasonable inference, one is not.shall i spell out the analogy? we already know where jerusalem is. we know where most of the old walls are, too. individual building, and who specifically they belonged to are harder to prove.some kind of inscription would do it though. if they find that, by all means announce it (even if it later turns out to be a forgery). but barring evidence, it's just fantasy. the neat thing about egyptians is that they marked stuff well. they wrote all over it. when we find a pharoah's tomb, not only do we know who was in it, but we generally have their biography, writings, and all their worldly posessions too.there, well, to invoke a biblical phrase, you just "read the writing on the wall."

---

אָרַח

I'll have to reread those passages. I dont remember anything that says where David's palace would be.But back to some original arguments in this thread.
There is nothing to show that this is David's place or for that matter nothing to show it is a palace at all.