“The Bible Unearthed” changed my thinking entirely. Terrific.

Agreed!… I wanted to read them as well!

Conflicted time? There is finally peace in most of the world.

What can't you see?

@@zamiel3 🤣 what do you mean "what can't you see?" The resolution of the video is so low rendering it all so blurry nothing can be clearly seen or read on the slide screen!

I agree... all these videos from IISHJvid are very poorly uploaded, the resolution sucks...

@@hurdygurdyguy1 Unfortunately, our videos from Colloquium programs 1995-2005 were digitized from videotapes whose original quality wasn't excellent. Beginning with Colloquium 2007 on Jews and the Muslim World, the quality is much better. If you go to the videos tab and look at the most recently posted videos first, they should be much clearer. Thanks for watching!

Everything in the Bible is borrowed

Your referring to Tanis in modern day Lebanon?

The 2 Kings 18 says that Hezekiah allied himself with Egypt, however Judah was mainly a vassal of Assyria so I am not sure how much that would make a difference.

Upper Egypt

Luxor is Solomon's temple. Ahmenotep III is Solomon..

Not really! Historians and archeologist need to look for the Bible archaeology somewhere else, such as Southern Arabia.

It is. But science has to be impartial. What's amazing to me is how this is still not widely known.

The video description links to a website for the conference at which it was delivered - 2005. iishj.org/colloquium-05.html. Thanks for watching!

Chyrre, ha, ha! But a pixel is a pixel and not nothing. It wasn't big, but it was there 😉 But seriously, some events in the Bible happened, others did not, and some things have been distorted or left out. Religious scriptures aren't history books.

Why would the Romans build an entire fort around a five foot in diameter piece of limestone that alines perfectly with the East gate?

he didn't exist

Moses, David and Soloman never existed.

There is archeology proving David was a king.

​@@kashanfaizan2747, I don't know about 4he other guys - but at least King David did exist. Inscriptions which mention the "House of David" have been found - but it's highly unlikely that he was as important as the OT wants us to believe.

Good one.

Whenever you see 666, it is your mission to destroy that

Lol😅😮😅

Why not ?

Why wouldnt they? Especially when it would affirm their belief and help them further push religion to control people.

Truth Seeker I have seen the beautiful farmland of the valley of Megiddo, from the top of Mount Megiddo. You’ve heard of it because some Christians believe that is where Armageddon will happen.

@@stephaniereif7790 "Mt." Megiddo makes the little hill of Megiddo sound bigger than it is! You get a better view of the Jezreel Valley from Nazareth or even Mt. Tabor ... and yes, the farmland in the valley is very good!

Ate you serious? There is no mountain piles of evidence, theres literally NO evidence for an exodus from Egypt and no evidence that Joshua conquered canaan, further more theres MOUNTAINS of evidence to prove that hebrews were infact canaanites, DNA today proves canaanites still are alive and well today. Events in the bible took place, but not to the extent that it says, not the way it says they happened, and were clearly embellished for political power and gain.

​@@JewessChrstnMystic, I have to agree! Especially the claim that the Israelites were somehow inherently different from the rest of the Canaanites has been disproved by genetic testing.

The stele mentioning "house of David"? If that's what you are referring to, it does little to change anything.

@@GnosticTheist Which David? When? What is its provenance?

They found it almost 40 years ago, this founding is no doudt very important, because now we know that dynasty of David exited at that time. But this fact has nothing to do with biblical account of Israel's golden age when Solomon was so rich that he made silver as plentiful as stones

You are referring to the Tel Dan stele. He mentions it at 13:10.

But do these artifacts say, "I am Solomon, who am king of Israel and received tribute from Moab" (or other such explicit text)?

Artifacts than do nothing to change his presentation.

@@zamiel3 but the second temple was not built on the same spot? Were the later builders mistaken as to the location of the First Temple? Just curious.

Evidences for his claim are almost irrefutable … He knows his drill.

That the religion has changed over 5 thousand years does not mean there is no connection. The Jews have a long, tumultuous history that began in the Levant.

And if he chased after pagan gods (which it says he did)after the creator of all things supposedly told him not to then he wasnt that wise was he.

No one finds it strange that god chose a "people" and rulers, to be his "chosen". That were so defiant, from the time he chose them, that he wanted to annihilate them, almost immediately, and have constantly defied him? Does that sound like a very wise god???

But Solomon repented and returned to the Lord when he was old. Meanwhile the Ark of God, Throne of David and Levitical Priesthood moved to Ethiopia (Axum) where the lineage of David continued to Emperor Haile Selassie 1 of Ethiopia, the Conquering Lion of Judah.

well a messiah is always called "he״ in the bible. Messiah means anointed. So the answer to your question is either a. No or b,. Depends on what kind of messiah you mean.

Excellent points. What were we thinking before?

The names 'David' and 'Solomon' are invented names when a fictional bloodline was being worked out, quite late really in biblical terms. The names have been apportioned to certain Pharaohs, but are unlikely to be such. There are many such oral traditions which were interpolated.

That would mean they would have to have ruled before The Exodus is even thought to have occurred

@@glutinousmaximus The exodus is also a later story.

Crazy how everyone has something different to say about what the bible says and means. Everyone interprets it differently yet claims to understand it and have the truth.

Yet the Bible/Tanakh say it IS supposed to be inerrant.

Take it literally

FAITH is belief in the absence of evidence, and unfortunately very often despite the evidence. Faith is stubborn ignorance.

And greatly benefit it.

@@hooh1644 Benefit how?

From Haartz First, claim the critics, the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of the site has not been proven. Some, like Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Dr. Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University, claim that these are the remnants of a small Canaanite kingdom that existed in the Judean foothills between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines. Even if it is Jewish, it is possible that this was a settlement that was actually connected to an Israelite kingdom that was located father north, in the Ramallah region, and predated the Kingdom of David. The critics also want to see evidence of the dating of the large stone wall, since only few vestiges of it remain. But the main argument against many of the biblical archaeologists is that they are biased by the biblical text - a text that was written hundreds of years after the events, and by a writer with a clear political and religious agenda. "I haven't been at the site during the past season," says Finkelstein, "so I can't judge the nature and date of the structure. There's no question that this is an interesting and important site. The excavators attribute it to Judah. Alexander Fantalkin and I suggested that it should be seen as a border fortress of an Israelite unit whose center was on a mountain north of Jerusalem. In any case, I would be careful about uncritical links to biblical traditions that were written down hundreds of years after the site was abandoned." Prof. Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University is digging not far from Qeiyafa on Tel Zafit, which during that period was the Philistine city of Gath - a city far richer and larger than Qeiyafa. He agrees that it is a Judahite site, "that's the simplest and most logical explanation. But does that mean that we can raise arguments about the kingdom of David and Solomon? That seems to me a grandiose upgrade," says Meir. He believes that this is an attempt by "an ancient Judahite entity" to draw a border for itself vis-a-vis the Philistine city of Gath. "The destruction of the site demonstrates that this experiment didn't last for long, and how does that accord with the biblical explanation of the victory of the United Monarchy?"

He explicitly states that stratographic dating is *relative* and requires other data to make absolute assertions of dates.

Even if that's true, it is consistent with all the other evidence he presents.

Source?

We know the exodus is a myth, so please don’t be offended by me asking for the source material for your significant claim

@@bradleywillis1654 We don't know that

Construction of temple in Jerusalem which was at the time a village of 0,5 ha 😂

Do you think that just because the bible tells you that?

Truth Seeker they were diplomatic relationships with other countries. Acceptable at the time.

Good point!

Where then, New Jersey?

It’s a myth .

Huh?!? I am pretty sure that 14 odd billion year should be enough to cover the time period of the temple....

Where?

So does the rest of north Africa, iberic peninsula, Middle East, Ethiopia, Mediterranean, etc, etc,...

ursusenil: Your comment is about as shallow as the 80's were.

Well we are Jews - sorry to offend you for existing you hateful racist

Now Cheeses....Arian's history of Alexander has been questioned, and Suetonius, LIvy, etc., have been challenged, like, forever. What we have become aware of is the bias of writers and whether you like it or not, the Torah and the Bible were written by individuals with an agenda.

"Why don't you people go study something you DO Believe in." What a ridiculous suggestion -- that only people who start out believing a story should be able to look into whether that story is true. Archaeology is a science. One starts out with the question, "What does the evidence demonstrate was true?" not "Let me cherry pick evidence to support my belief in a story." All historical and pseudo-historical accounts can be and are investigated. The difference with Alexander is that we don't have a lot of people insisting that mythologized stories about Alexander must be true to support their current religious beliefs and politics.

Derp. They do. And have been for about 200 years. Every translation has a forward TELLING YOU where its wrong and why. Plus footnotes.

So your upset because English isn't his first language?? Or, because you are too ignorant to be able to understand him?? Either way, it's a *YOU* problem. I can understand him just fine. Maybe you should learn his native language and listen to one of his lectures in his native tongue.

Then go watch a movie

Cedric Hooks Since there are people who like to live in denial or they just ignorant...ha~ Got that...

Cedric Hooks But, at the same time you must respect, forgive, and forgot since they don't know any better... It is hard to accept the truth sometimes...

Well, dis even worse...ha~ We all know long time ago that these was people like you and me...so ! Even if you go to MIKRA this too is an archaeological research if you will... Also, as Dr. Bien-Noon as a reasecher will say that even the religious books are also inaccurate...?

Alan Thiercelin finkelstein = frankenstein

Alan Thiercelin Finkelstein is well known for his anti-biblical - pro secular bias. He has been proven wrong on a number of occasions for taking such a stand. The most famous of these was his claim the the patriarch Abraham was a fictitious character , which is bases on the claim that the bible refers to Abraham in conjunction with domesticated camels which says were not domesticated at the time of Abraham - therefore Abraham is fictitious. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOF OF CAMEL DOMESTICATION FROM 3RD AND 2ND MILLENNIUM BC - THE TIME OF ABRAHAM THE EVIDENCE Why Frankenstein refused to mention these indicates he is either intentionally lieing or doesn't know his own field of expertise and should consider another profession other than archaeology. This confirms domesticated camels were being used at the time of Abraham , thus confirming scripture. From the Levant, a Syrian cylinder seal dated ca. 1800 BC depicts two small figures riding on a two-humped camel. Another figurine that appears to suggest an early date for camel domestication is found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The figurine is a small copper alloy statue of a Bactrian camel, equipped with what appears to be some type of harness. The artifact is dated to between the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC, from Bactria-Margiana. A Sumerian text found at Nippur from the Old Babylonian period, ca. 1950-1600 BC, “gives clear evidence of the domestication of the camel by that time, for it alludes to camel’s milk. Another text mentions “a Camel in a list of domesticated animals during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC) in a Sumerian Lexical Text from Ugarit. Yet, evidence for camel domestication may be found even into the 3rd millennium BC. A second set of relevant camel petroglyphs in Egypt come from a rock carving near Aswan and Gezireh in Upper Egypt. This carving depicts a man leading a dromedary camel with a rope, along with 7 hieratic characters to the left of the man. The entire carving was dated to the 6th Dynasty of Egypt, 2345-2181 BC Thus, there is ample evidence indicating early camel domestication from several geographical areas proving camel domestication as early as the 3rd millennium BC. It seems Frankenstein has an "agenda" that has nothing to do with archaeology but more to do with secularism.