Quantcast
Faith

King David's palace found, says Israeli team

Comments

Return To Article
  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2013 6:20 a.m.

    "unequivocal evidence"

    Interesting, to be certain, but "unequivocal"? Not really.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 22, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    As I learned watching raiders of the lost ark..."Archaeology is not an exact science". It appears they've found ruins that suggest people existed there in the past. That's all.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    July 22, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    Hutt - "It appears they've found ruins that suggest people existed there in the past. That's all."

    A little too obvious - what ruins do not suggest people existed there in the past? I believe there is much more data than people simply existed there. The art of archaeology is interpreting the whole from little evidence and I appreciate the attempt even though many interpretations are likely to be incorrect.

  • Rational Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    Did Garfinkel hear the sounds of silence?

  • Befuddled WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 22, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Denial is not a river Egypt, there are none so blind as those who will not see! They could find a name plaque stating "King David's Palace" and most would still deny it existed. ie: RanchHand, Kralon, and Hutterite look away nothing to see here!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 23, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    @Befuddled;

    If they found a name plate stating that "King David Lived Here", that would be "unequivocal evidence", and it would be quite convincing.

    But they didn't find such a plaque, did they? No, they simply found some ancient ruins, and those ruins could have been the habitation of just about anyone of authority. King David was only one of many rulers who happened to live in the area long, long, long, long, long ago.