Earliest reference to Jerusalem found?? (History I)

Well, it’s another day of Biblical Archaeology and the archaeologists have found more archaeological evidence for the Bible! Check it out!

Read it in this link right here:
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2016/10/26/earliest-reference-to-jerusalem-found-in-rare-ancient-papyrus#.WBUlE_orLIU

Here’s a picture of it to prove it!

download.jpg

It’s 2,700 years old. A reference to Jerusalem 2,700 years old. So, this is the earliest reference to Jerusalem in history, correct?
NO.

As much as I love Biblical archaeology, and this does in fact help corroborate the Bible, this is just not the very first reference to Jerusalem. A ton of outlets are claiming that it is even though it isn’t. Jerusalem is recorded 3,300-3,400 years ago, at least 600 years before this reference, in the Amarna Tablets. Technically, it’s spelled Urusalim in the Amarna Tablets, but Scholars still know it means Jerusalem. I suppose, because of this variant spelling, technically this manuscript is the first unequivocal reference to Jerusalem, or perhaps the earliest reference in Hebrew, even though it isn’t the earliest in general. This discovery was made a few days ago. Like 3 days or something. At least we have even more evidence for the Bible know (even though there have been around 4-5 major discoveries in the last three months alone that each verify a serious major Biblical narrative to be historical… you can send me an e-mail if you want to know about them, that are of course much more serious than this one).

You might be thinking as well, that these kind of posts aren’t what I usually do. Whatever, I’ll have a real post later today or tomorrow.

EXTRA POINT:

If you wanted me to respond to any objection to Christianity (the Bible or anything), or prove anything about Christianity being true, just post a comment and I may add it to a list of some of my posts coming to the future. For example, if you want to see me prove that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — just post a comment! (although I already did that here, but a part two and three will eventually be posted i guess) Thanks for the read!

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Earliest reference to Jerusalem found?? (History I)

    • I don’t use AOL, but I’d be happy to try solving your problem if you send it to me in your next response. Just noting however — I try to do my research, but by no means am I a specialist or historian.

      Like

  1. …..this is just not the very first reference to Jerusalem. A ton of outlets are claiming that it is even though it isn’t.

    See? This is what you wrote. And there are NOT a ”ton of outlets” claiming anything of the sort.
    The IAA is merely stating this is the oldest reference in HEBREW to have been discovered so far.

    Do you finally understand?

    Like

    • Sorry bud, you made a mistake. Time to give it up. You were mistaken on every accusation you’ve mad against me on all my blogs. Evidence for the exodus, authorship of the Gospels, etc, etc, etc. This is a battle you wont win, continuing to troll on my blog wont get you anywhere except getting bludgeoned by a pitch fork.

      Like

      • Your mistake was continuing to purport my error on the earliest reference being in Hebrew, after I told you to re-read my blog, for it thus contained a mention that it is in fact the earlies Hebrew reference. Buddy bud.

        Like

      • Yes, but you stated that it was being claimed to be oldest reference to Jerusalem, which the IAA and all those ”tons of outlets” are not claiming at all.

        Why don´you simply accept that you erred and edit your post?

        It isn’t that difficult and it is still an interesting article.

        Like


      • …or perhaps the earliest reference in Hebrew, even though it isn’t the earliest in general

        .

        That is what you wrote.
        I have explained numerous times already that the IAA and all those ”tons of outlets” (none of whom referenced) never claimed the piece of manuscript was the oldest reference to Jerusalem.

        But you made the point of suggesting this is what was being claimed.
        Read the quote I posted above once more.

        Like

      • Correct, I made a mistake regarding what the outlets reported, and you misrepresented my statements regarding me failing to understand that this was the earliest Hebrew, not the earliest reference in general. This conversation has wasted enough of my time. Any further posts on this issue will be eliminated.

        Like

      • This post was not regarding any argument or anything, i just wanted to write a blog about a discovery in the last week. I just uploaded a blog something like half an hour ago debunking a supposed Biblical error.

        I’m from the village sides of Syria, I don’t know exactly from which city. My grandparents own a house in Damascus (which ISIS hasn’t captured yet, and hopefully never will).

        Liked by 1 person

  2. So, this is the earliest reference to Jerusalem in history, correct?
    NO.

    From the link you provided:
    JERUSALEM- Archaeologists unveiled a 2,700-year-old papyrus fragment, described as “the earliest extra-biblical source to mention Jerusalem in Hebrew writing” the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) said Wednesday.

    Try actually reading the article instead of seeing only what you want to see.

    The Amarna letters were written in Akkadian.

    Like

    • Ark,

      The item in question is an invoice that has nothing to do with the Amarna letters.

      You’d know that if you had actually read the article.

      As usual you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

      Like

      • Yes, SOM, I am aware it is a shipping invoice. The Scientific christian stated it was not the oldest reference to Jerusalem making an allusion that this was what the article by the IAA was claiming. They are not, merely stating it is the oldest reference in the Hebrew language.

        Although this blogger may be unaware the Amarna letter were written in Akkadian surely even you know this?

        Like

    • Re-read the blog, ignoramus. After you were unequivocally refuted on all four other of my blogs, and had to have numerous of your posts deleted for equating to nothing more than derogatory insults, you continue stalking my page. If you want to debate me, you can contact me at my gmail account, faithfulphilosophy@gmail.com, where I can educate you a bit more, however your worthless spam on my page will be blocked from here on out, unless you are going to contribute not only actual information, but information delivered in a respectful manner.

      Like

      • You stated this was not in fact the earliest reference to Jerusalem.
        The artcile did not make that claim but stated it was the earliest reference in the HEBREW language.

        The Amarna tablets were written in Akkadian.
        What is it exactly you have failed to grasp?

        Like

      • YOU WROTE:

        As much as I love Biblical archaeology, and this does in fact help corroborate the Bible, this is just not the very first reference to Jerusalem.

        There, you blathering half wit.

        The IAA article merely states it is the oldest reference to Jerusalem. in Hebrew

        Like

      • Keep reading, you blathering half twit.

        I CONTINUED TO WRITE:
        Technically, it’s spelled Urusalim in the Amarna Tablets, but Scholars still know it means Jerusalem. I suppose, because of this variant spelling, technically this manuscript is the first unequivocal reference to Jerusalem, or perhaps the earliest reference in Hebrew, even though it isn’t the earliest in general.

        There. Your further whining will be definitely deleted from this page.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s