Jump to content

Talk:Solomon's Temple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 180.245.89.14 (talk) at 09:31, 5 June 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Concerning Freemasonry

The article states that there is a connection between the Temple ajd Freemasonry, but does not give any examples of how it relates, particularly in the ritual. It's odd that there are onky a few lines on the topic, and no detail. If no one objects, I can expand the section a little to elaborate more, while also giving citations. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are later myths and legends, nothing to do with the time when the Temple existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. The legends and Freemasonry are related to the topic, and they have a section in the article that is rather thin. Since Freemasonry is a notable thing in itself, and it is related to the topic of the article, it should at least have more than "Freemasonry's rituals are related to the Temple" and explain how they related.
I should also mention that the Temple's existence itself is contested, and could be, and has been, described as a myth and legend. I believe the Temple existed mind you, but to claim it is established fact that it existed is ignoring a sizable academic and popular belief that it didn't.
Pepe Oats (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since the temple is associated with a mythological king, Solomon, its existence has been disputed for a long time. Nobody has been able to find anything confirming Solomon's existence, much less the supposed king's building projects. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most scholars would grant the point that there was a temple, probably small, probably not Solomon's and probably Pagan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The temple is generally accepted (whether built by Solomon or not, the existence of Solomon, and the scope of Solomon's rule (e.g. Solomon could have existed - just not as grand as described)) as historical. Regarding pagan rituals - the general consensus these a-days is that there was a progression of beliefs in the first temple. The temple originally probably had a physical representation of Y' and probably housed worship only for Y' (as the ethnic god of Israelites - just as Moabites had Chemosh) - and there was pagan worship of other gods outside. There were also additional temples elsewhere, also dedicated to Y' (e.g. - see recent find at Tel Lachish - [1]). At the end of the first temple era, there was an attempt to centralize worship to Jerusalem and remove imagery. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visiting Solomon's Temple, as it is described in the Bible, would be a highly disturbing experience for Orthodox Jews, who hold to aniconism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology: list of "proofs" needs massive overhaul

What's now under "Other" is worthless (no info on where the finds were made, how they prove Temple existence and/or location), and the source is dead. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual legacy

Nothing in Judaism (-kabbalah) or Christianity (-FM)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon's Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high

I added "The house that King Solomon built for the LORD was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high." {[bibleref2|1 Kings|6:2[} 2601:580:109:6120:31F3:AC1F:3069:1B2E (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

An explanation as to why the Times of Israel is not a reliable source is needed. Here come the Suns (talk)

Why to include it as a reliable source better??Mr.User200 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why a mainstream media outlet is not a reliable source, thank you. Here come the Suns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1st) Is not a Archaelogical Historical Source for the weight of that claim. For thta type of claim more than one source is needed.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give another source claiming that and i will revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here you go: Israel heralds first direct evidence of King Solomon’s Temple Here come the Suns (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And another: Israel Displays First Temple-era Pottery Found on Temple Mount Here come the Suns (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok for the fact that there's an active archaeological site, not for commentary about evidence. That needs peer reviewed archaeological reports and in fact preferably commentary on those. The media often gets this stuff wrong, not to mention the political context. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that policy requires us to provide a peer reviewed archaeological report in order to claim that there were archaeological findings? What is that policy? Here come the Suns (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, most scholars would concede the reality of a temple there. The question is: whose temple? And temple of which religion, precisely? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The material removed with a dubious claim of "unreliable source" did not make any claim with regards to whose temple it was. It simple stated "In 2016, similar findings of olive pits, bones and pottery shards were found, in situ, on the Temple Mount itself."Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. Further, it is common sense that such village would have its own temple. So, the mere existence of the temple is not disputed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reread what I wrote. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, as far as I am concerned, it is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text in the lede

I reverted text added by Here come the Suns for three reasons. One is that it was largely based on a JCPA article, not on the Times, and JCPA is a highly unreliable propaganda organization. The second is that opinions like "illegal" and "evidence" must not be presented as facts in Wikipedia's voice. The third is that the lead is already longer than it should be and the Temple Mount Sifting Project already has a section later in the article. Zerotalk 02:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because "the Temple Mount Sifting Project already has a section later in the article" that it deserves mention in the lede- the lede needs to fairly and accurately summarize the article. We can discuss the length of such mentions in the lede, the exact wording and the sources used to support them, but to claim that it should be removed from the lede because it has a section later in the article is a gross misunderstanding of how the lede should be written.
I don't think the lede is particularly long for an article of this size, but a suggestion on how to trim it down would be to remove the false claim that "No archaeological excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times"
Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that replaces the above with one that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a false claim. It is the truth. The Sifting Project is not an archaeological excavation on the Temple Mount. Moreover, this is not the Temple Mount article. Given that the Sifting Project has so far contributed almost nothing to knowledge about "Solomon's Temple", it is dubious that it should be mentioned at all. Zerotalk 00:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a false claim - Israel Displays First Temple-era Pottery Found on Temple Mount. There is a section in the article about the sifting project, thus is it proper to summarize the section in the lede. Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a full archaeological excavation could not be carried out, just a hasty job of documentation and collection", ok it is something that can be mentioned. However the Sifting Project is not an archaeological excavation on the Temple Mount. Any accusations could also be accompanied by "The Waqf has not conducted significantly works that would damage finds beneath the surface in recent years" from the same article. Zerotalk 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Discoveries found in situ on Temple Mount dating to the late First Temple period, excavated and collected by the Israel Antiquities Authority over the last 10 years"; It may not have been a "full archaeological excavation" ( a claim no-one has made), but it is clear that the claim that "No archaeological excavations have been allowed on the Temple Mount during modern times" is false, and has no place in the article, let alone its lede.
The sifting project, while not conducted on the mount itself, is of material removed from the mount, thus it is relevant (as evidence by the fact it has its own section in the article), and a sentence explaining the context- it is hard to excavate on the mount itself, thus archaeologists are forced to sift through rubble off site - belongs in the lead.
Do you want to take a stab at formulating a short sentence that mentions the sifting project, or would you like me to give it a shot? Here come the Suns (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert made by here come the Suns.

Please avoid un explained reverts made on Zero000 and Volunter Marek edits on opening part of the article.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is provided right above your comment, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No clear explanation given, anyway your edit was reverted by VM. Please stop that behaviour.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a very clear explanation was given, namely - that the current lead which states no excavations were done is wrong, and I provided reliable sources to that effect. If you don't understand my explanation, ask, and I will be happy to explain it to you, but please refrain form falsely claiming I made an "unexplained evert". This is not the first time you've done this, and I'm growing a little tired of it. Here come the Suns (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden beams

The very old dates for wooden beams from the al-Aqsa mosque were obtained in the late 1970s and published in 1983. About 2016 the radiocarbon dating was repeated using more modern techniques and only Byzantine period dates were found. (Y. Baruch, R. Reich & D. Sandhaus, A decade of archaeological exploration on the Temple Mount, Tel Aviv, 45:1, 3–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2018.1412057). So the relevance of these beams to the article has evaporated. Zerotalk 01:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1

1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Fake plan 180.245.89.14 (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


THIS IS A TRIGGER FOR ME

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Solomon%27s_Temple&oldid=960864139"