Replies

My comments to the poster:

It absolutely is the Temple Mount. I have excavated underneath it, and you can still find Temple artifacts in the rubble that the Palestinians have been removing on the Mount to try to remove all traces of the Temple. In fact, Underneath the el Asqa Mosque, I have visited Solomon' stables--the were perserved until the Oslo Accords were signed and the Pals gained more control over the mount (they have destroyed the stables and put in a gigantic mosque). I am familiar with the people this guy quotes, and they are all British "revisionists" archaelogists. HeThere is no question about the authenticity of the site, because below the Temple Mount, on the North Side and below the Fortress is Solomon's quarries. You can still see the cut marks where the stones were quarried (they have been verified.) This guy supports the old Kathleen Kenyon thought (probably was the most revisionist British Archaelogist to ever live.) He calls the Mount by the Palestinian Arabic name "Haram esh-Sharif", and as anyone knows, Islam wasn't invented until the 7th century C.E. This "expert" apparently has not read all of Josephus, because Josephus gave great information concerning Solomon's Stables, Quarries and the Fortress. The British have been trying to De-Jew Jerusalem for Centuries and deny their ownership. They will not succeed. That is why the Palestinians have useless idiots like this--to claim ownership of the Temple Mount. In fact, last week, the Imam at el Asqa denied the Jewishness of the Western Wall.

Another form of proof is Hezikaya's Tunnel. This was tunnel dug from what would become the Temple Mount to the Gihon Springs to the South. It is still there, and you can still walk through it. Josephus talked extensively about that as well.

Thank you both for kind and informative remarks. I never for a moment doubt the truth that the present Temple Mount is the true and original one, and having persons more knowledgeable than I reaffirm my understanding is welcome.

One of the things I enjoy about Bib.Arch.Review is the debate between Biblical minimalists (the revisonists belong to this group) and the historicists (for want of a better term). I tend to be in the latter group, though I am not one who advocates literal interpretation of every word in the Bible (and neither do they, actually). Interpretation depends upon the very complex contexts in which Revelation occurs.

Again, thank you.

Regards.