Comments about ‘King David's palace found, says Israeli team’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Huntsville, UT

"unequivocal evidence"

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

American Fork, UT

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.


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.

Salt Lake City, UT

Did Garfinkel hear the sounds of silence?


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!

Huntsville, UT


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.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments