The Copper Scroll

[exchemist]

I quite agree that we should use our critical faculties, and I believe that this is what Barfield has used.

To believe that the Bible is God's Word also requires critical faculties. It should be apparent from the RFs that anyone claiming to believe in God, and the Bible as the Word of God, will have to justify their beliefs in the face of critical opposition.

If a person feels confident that the Bible provides a convincing history of Israel, then it makes perfect sense to apply this confidence to the field of archaeology.

I would argue that archaeology continues to support the Biblical accounts, and vice versa. Even today, watching the Pope in Ur in Iraq, I am reminded of the amazing finds throughout the Middle East that support the Bible narrative.

Except that, as any educated person will realise, the bible does not provide a "convincing history of Israel".
No scholar of the ancient world thinks it does.

Aren't you supposed to be a teacher? What has happened to your own critical faculties?

Actually I think I know the answer. I think you have chosen to park your critical faculties when it comes to anything to with your religion. You may choose to do that, but you can't expect others to do the same.

 

[Redemptionsong]

History may start to emerge from the clouds of myth around 1000BC. It seems most historians think King David was a a historical figure, though nothing is known about him: David

There seems to be an inscribed stone at Tel-Dan, from the c.9th-8th BC referring to the House of David.

The further one goes back in history, the harder it becomes to provide hard evidence of personal lives. Historical methodology, or historiography, is said to date from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the 5th century BCE. Written histories, intended to inform future generations of past events, gradually appear after this time.

Other forms of evidence have to be used to determine events of the distant past. The individuals likely to appear on inscriptions, such as Egyptian cartouches, will be people of royal or 'godly' renown. The lives of the common people have to be recreated from painstaking research into geography, food sources, artefacts, buildings, religious practices, transport and so on.

The Bible, IMO, is not a history book, but a revelation. It includes history, parables, psalms etc but to the believer the author is God, not man. To believe that God is the author is ultimately not a matter of reason alone, but faith. Is it blind faith? No. It's a faith borne out of reason and experience. It's a revelation that appeals to both the mind and the heart.

If you have arrived at the belief that David was a king of Judah and Israel, then you'll have to ask yourself whether writings attributed to David speak the truth or not. In Psalm 105, attributed to David, it says, 'Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;'. These are the words attributed to David, who lived around 1000 BCE. So, David knew about a man named Abraham, and his son Isaac. Were these men 'myths'? Well, not if you follow the genealogy passed down in the biblical records. These were real, living souls.

In Hebrews, chapter 11, Paul dedicates a chapter to talking about men of faith. He works forward, without any great time lapses, from Abel to Enoch, to Noah, to Abraham and Sara, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph, to Joshua, to Gideon, to Barak, to Samson, to Jephthae, to David, to Samuel, and, finally, to the prophets. Is there any question that these were not real men or women? None.

The great challenge for you is not one of reason, but one of faith. Faith in God.

 

[exchemist]

The further one goes back in history, the harder it becomes to provide hard evidence of personal lives. Historical methodology, or historiography, is said to date from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the 5th century BCE. Written histories, intended to inform future generations of past events, gradually appear after this time.

Other forms of evidence have to be used to determine events of the distant past. The individuals likely to appear on inscriptions, such as Egyptian cartouches, will be people of royal or 'godly' renown. The lives of the common people have to be recreated from painstaking research into geography, food sources, artefacts, buildings, religious practices, transport and so on.

The Bible, IMO, is not a history book, but a revelation. It includes history, parables, psalms etc but to the believer the author is God, not man. To believe that God is the author is ultimately not a matter of reason alone, but faith. Is it blind faith? No. It's a faith borne out of reason and experience. It's a revelation that appeals to both the mind and the heart.

If you have arrived at the belief that David was a king of Judah and Israel, then you'll have to ask yourself whether writings attributed to David speak the truth or not. In Psalm 105, attributed to David, it says, 'Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;'. These are the words attributed to David, who lived around 1000 BCE. So, David knew about a man named Abraham, and his son Isaac. Were these men 'myths'? Well, not if you follow the genealogy passed down in the biblical records. These were real, living souls.

In Hebrews, chapter 11, Paul dedicates a chapter to talking about men of faith. He works forward, without any great time lapses, from Abel to Enoch, to Noah, to Abraham and Sara, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph, to Joshua, to Gideon, to Barak, to Samson, to Jephthae, to David, to Samuel, and, finally, to the prophets. Is there any question that these were not real men or women? None.

The great challenge for you is not one of reason, but one of faith. Faith in God.

Since, as you say, the bible's purpose is a religious one (and also, fairly evidently, one of establishing the national myth of the Jewish people), it is clear that it cannot be relied upon, uncorroborated, as a historical record. That is the position taken by virtually all scholars of the ancient world.

I am at a loss to see how what you have written has any bearing on why you think we should take Barfield seriously.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Since, as you say, the bible's purpose is a religious one (and also, fairly evidently, one of establishing the national myth of the Jewish people), it is clear that it cannot be relied upon, uncorroborated, as a historical record. That is the position taken by virtually all scholars of the ancient world.

I am at a loss to see how what you have written has any bearing on why you think we should take Barfield seriously.

If the Bible is a product of man's invention, then all that you say holds true. Faith in God, as Dawkins proclaims, would be man's weakness and not his strength.

If God exists, and inspired the prophets of the Bible to speak forth His words, then the knowledge and power behind the words of the Bible are more profound than those of any uninspired thinker, however great their natural intellect. In other words, God's omniscience is greater than the intellect of any expert.

IMO, the Bible, as an inspired scripture, is an informative and accurate account of events in the history of Israel. The Bible provides us with a coherent and structured record of a people chosen by God to fulfil His purposes.

Men such as Wyatt and Barfield may not have come to the field of archaeology with any formal academic qualifications, but their claims should not, I believe, be dismissed without fair assessment. What they are encouraging the academic institutions to do is to look at sites, and at possibilities, that match what they understand to be true through faith in God and in the Bible.

The uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which gave rise to the discovery of the Copper Scroll, allowed people outside the academic establishment to use published materials for their own research. Barfield did this, based on his faith and interests, and what he uncovered from his research encouraged him to take the matter to higher authorities.

Although you have chosen to dismiss his research, and denigrate the characters of Barfield and Neese, we have yet to see the full outcome of this project.

I'm sure if I did a study of great archaeological finds, many would turn out to have been initiated by people without 'expert' qualifications. In the past, grave robbers and treasure seekers [not suggesting Wyatt or Barfield are such people] have often pointed archaeologists to sites of interest, as was the case with Basil Brown and the Sutton Hoo excavations in Suffolk, UK. It was not until local archaeologist Basil Brown had uncovered the structure of the burial ship, centuries after the initial grave robberies, that experts from Cambridge University were called in to assist with the excavations (1939).

In 1946/7 Bedouin found the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The experts only came to realise their value some time later, when efforts had been made by the Bedouin to sell the scrolls to Arab dealers of antiquities.

What this shows is that great archaeological finds are not always initiated by the experts. In fact, the experts often appear on the scene after the initial explorations/finds have been made.

 

[firedragon]

There appears to be a wave of interest generated by the discovery of a copper scroll in Qumran, which, according to Jim Barfield (see You Tube videos), provides information on the whereabouts of a huge quantity of silver and gold vessels/furniture once associated with the temple in Jerusalem.

The real interest in this discovery is not so much the value of the treasure (worth billions, apparently) as the implications for a new temple in Jerusalem.

Would the unearthing of these vessels increase the likelihood of a new temple being built? How far have plans for such a building progressed? Can any good come from rebuilding the temple? Is it God's will that the temple should be rebuilt?

Your thoughts.

Interesting. How in the world did you come across this?

I dont know about this gentleman you quoted and maybe after I watch him I would. But I can tell you somethings about this scroll. This is like a log. A ledger. And it is indeed a log of places where some valuables are hidden. What is curious is something you might notice. At Qumran, everything found were religious. Only this was not. Also, as you know this is in metal. Also it has some linguistics unfound in ancient documents of the time, and some Greek signatures or codes that stand out. If this is giving locations of buried treasure, why is it buried with some religious documents? If they found the other locations, will there be more documents just like the metal scroll in them too? Why? Because this seems like a signature being the only of its kind in the DSS?

Anyway. I am curious to know what you mean by this "New Temple being built"? Could you give some idea about that?

 

[exchemist]

If the Bible is a product of man's invention, then all that you say holds true. Faith in God, as Dawkins proclaims, would be man's weakness and not his strength.

If God exists, and inspired the prophets of the Bible to speak forth His words, then the knowledge and power behind the words of the Bible are more profound than those of any uninspired thinker, however great their natural intellect. In other words, God's omniscience is greater than the intellect of any expert.

IMO, the Bible, as an inspired scripture, is an informative and accurate account of events in the history of Israel. The Bible provides us with a coherent and structured record of a people chosen by God to fulfil His purposes.

Men such as Wyatt and Barfield may not have come to the field of archaeology with any formal academic qualifications, but their claims should not, I believe, be dismissed without fair assessment. What they are encouraging the academic institutions to do is to look at sites, and at possibilities, that match what they understand to be true through faith in God and in the Bible.

The uncovering of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which gave rise to the discovery of the Copper Scroll, allowed people outside the academic establishment to use published materials for their own research. Barfield did this, based on his faith and interests, and what he uncovered from his research encouraged him to take the matter to higher authorities.

Although you have chosen to dismiss his research, and denigrate the characters of Barfield and Neese, we have yet to see the full outcome of this project.

I'm sure if I did a study of great archaeological finds, many would turn out to have been initiated by people without 'expert' qualifications. In the past, grave robbers and treasure seekers [not suggesting Wyatt or Barfield are such people] have often pointed archaeologists to sites of interest, as was the case with Basil Brown and the Sutton Hoo excavations in Suffolk, UK. It was not until local archaeologist Basil Brown had uncovered the structure of the burial ship, centuries after the initial grave robberies, that experts from Cambridge University were called in to assist with the excavations (1939).

In 1946/7 Bedouin found the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The experts only came to realise their value some time later, when efforts had been made by the Bedouin to sell the scrolls to Arab dealers of antiquities.

What this shows is that great archaeological finds are not always initiated by the experts. In fact, the experts often appear on the scene after the initial explorations/finds have been made.

Do you really suppose that Barfield brings new knowledge of the bible to the table, that archaeologists who have devoted years of their lives to studying these scrolls do not already have? That's nuts.

The fact that new archaeological finds are made by non-experts is of course true but is irrelevant here. The scrolls have already been found and deciphered. Barfield claims to have new ideas of where artifacts may be found, solely on the basis of his lack of knowledge of the script and his lack of understanding about the age of the scroll.

It is his lack of knowledge that makes his ideas new. Any fool can have a new idea that is nonsensical.

 

[firedragon]

Do you really suppose that Barfield brings new knowledge of the bible to the table, that archaeologists who have devoted years of their lives to studying these scrolls do not already have? That's nuts.

The fact that new archaeological finds are made by non-experts is of course true but is irrelevant here. The scrolls have already been found and deciphered. Barfield claims to have new ideas of where artifacts may be found, solely on the basis of his lack of knowledge of the script and his lack of understanding about the age of the scroll.

It is his lack of knowledge that makes his ideas new. Any fool can have a new idea that is nonsensical.

The thing is, the scroll in the OP has nothing to do with the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, or any other theology for that matter.

 

[exchemist]

The thing is, the scroll in the OP has nothing to do with the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, or any other theology for that matter.

True enough.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Interesting. How in the world did you come across this?

I dont know about this gentleman you quoted and maybe after I watch him I would. But I can tell you somethings about this scroll. This is like a log. A ledger. And it is indeed a log of places where some valuables are hidden. What is curious is something you might notice. At Qumran, everything found were religious. Only this was not. Also, as you know this is in metal. Also it has some linguistics unfound in ancient documents of the time, and some Greek signatures or codes that stand out. If this is giving locations of buried treasure, why is it buried with some religious documents? If they found the other locations, will there be more documents just like the metal scroll in them too? Why? Because this seems like a signature being the only of its kind in the DSS?

Anyway. I am curious to know what you mean by this "New Temple being built"? Could you give some idea about that?

The nature of the community at Qumran is still debated. Some consider it to have been a small religious (priestly, Essene) community, consisting of between 20 and 150 members. Other scholars have adopted a higher figure. The community was established, it is said, around 130 BCE and was overrun by the Romans during the Jewish revolt of 66-70CE.

The thinking is that the Qumran site (and surrounding mountains/caves) would have been an ideal hiding place for religious valuables. If the Roman threat on Jerusalem had been foreseen, then it is possible that priests could have been instructed to hide away temple treasures and money. Various hoards of coins have already been uncovered around the site, but not all are from the period of the Jewish Revolt, some are actually of a later date. A little further down the road is Masada, the mountain retreat used by Jewish fighters as their final bastion against the Romans.

What interests me is the idea that temple vessels and other valuables (but I don't believe this includes the Ark of the Covenant) may be found at this location. If they are, then what would happen to them? Will they find their way back into a new temple?

From the link supplied by Harel13, I can see that plans for such a temple are already quite well advanced, although many Ultra Orthodox Jews are opposed to the idea of a new temple being constructed before the appearance of the Messiah.

Harel also provided some of the scriptural justification for a temple being rebuilt, but I cannot see whether, in the scriptural passages shown, that the house spoken of is referring to a building or to a people, as the word 'house' can be found to apply to either people or a building (rather like 'church'). Christians have, for the most part, adopted the spiritual interpretation, in line with New Testament teaching that the temple is now synonymous with the body of Christ. From a Christian stance, it follows that any temple rebuilt in Jerusalem would be against God's will.

 

[firedragon]

The nature of the community at Qumran is still debated. Some consider it to have been a small religious (priestly, Essene) community, consisting of between 20 and 150 members. Other scholars have adopted a higher figure. The community was established, it is said, around 130 BCE and was overrun by the Romans during the Jewish revolt of 66-70CE.

The thinking is that the Qumran site (and surrounding mountains/caves) would have been an ideal hiding place for religious valuables. If the Roman threat on Jerusalem had been foreseen, then it is possible that priests could have been instructed to hide away temple treasures and money. Various hoards of coins have already been uncovered around the site, but not all are from the period of the Jewish Revolt, some are actually of a later date. A little further down the road is Masada, the mountain retreat used by Jewish fighters as their final bastion against the Romans.

What interests me is the idea that temple vessels and other valuables (but I don't believe this includes the Ark of the Covenant) may be found at this location. If they are, then what would happen to them? Will they find their way back into a new temple?

From the link supplied by Harel13, I can see that plans for such a temple are already quite well advanced, although many Ultra Orthodox Jews are opposed to the idea of a new temple being constructed before the appearance of the Messiah.

Harel also provided some of the scriptural justification for a temple being rebuilt, but I cannot see whether, in the scriptural passages shown, that the house spoken of is referring to a building or to a people, as the word 'house' can be found to apply to either people or a building (rather like 'church'). Christians have, for the most part, adopted the spiritual interpretation, in line with New Testament teaching that the temple is now synonymous with the body of Christ. From a Christian stance, it follows that any temple rebuilt in Jerusalem would be against God's will.

If the so called valuables are found, I dont know what would happen. I cannot say anything about a hypothetical. Anyway, this is the property of the Hashimites. So I cannot understand why they would build a so called "Temple" based on this. I really really cannot understand this. I have never heard of this and I have not heard any scholar speak about this. And in Jordan, definitely there are no so called "temples" being built because the Hashimites are supposed to be descendants of the prophet Muhammed, and they will never build a "temple", and the DSR are Jewish literature, and anyway this copper scroll has no theological significance.

This is why brother we must look at valid, primary sources or read scholarship. Some website is not good enough. But I will take a look at it nevertheless because its interesting.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If the so called valuables are found, I dont know what would happen. I cannot say anything about a hypothetical. Anyway, this is the property of the Hashimites. So I cannot understand why they would build a so called "Temple" based on this. I really really cannot understand this. I have never heard of this and I have not heard any scholar speak about this. And in Jordan, definitely there are no so called "temples" being built because the Hashimites are supposed to be descendants of the prophet Muhammed, and they will never build a "temple", and the DSR are Jewish literature, and anyway this copper scroll has no theological significance.

This is why brother we must look at valid, primary sources or read scholarship. Some website is not good enough. But I will take a look at it nevertheless because its interesting.

The temple I refer to is Herod's temple in Jerusalem, destroyed by the Romans in 70CE. It's worth reading Harel13's hyperlink in post 3.

I understand that the Qumran site is managed by Israel's Qumran National Park.

 

[firedragon]

The temple I refer to is Herod's temple in Jerusalem, destroyed by the Romans in 70CE. It's worth reading Harel13's hyperlink in post 3.

Thats not relevant to anything I said. I think you should read the post you are just responding to and take into consideration what it says.

I understand that the Qumran site is managed by Israel's Qumran National Park.

Of course. After the invasion.

I think brother, you should do a little more investigation.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thats not relevant to anything I said. I think you should read the post you are just responding to and take into consideration what it says.



Of course. After the invasion.

I think brother, you should do a little more investigation.

It's of passing interest and hasn't taken up too much time or effort. But thanks for your concern, brother.