Let’s Chat About Biblical Times

stock here: A bible Maven left some comments that ChatGDP expanded on, here they are.

AI generated indeed…

Philistines were strong way before the Exodus, that is why the newly released Hebrew slaves were not led by that way…and had little to nothing to do with Amaleq. ( Exodous 13:17)

Mount Zion ( aka “Zion”, Mt. Moriah, later the Temple Mount) is in Ir David , the old Jebusite city. It was a Jebusite threshing floor that was the spot for the alter King David and Natan built…after PAYING for it from the former Jebusite Lord ( Aruna) Tuned Convert.

It’s ( Zion) by the “Gihon” Spring or “Shiloach” ( two Hebrew names for the same spot. Silwan is what the Arabs call it. One MUST have a SPRING for purification in the Tabernacle and Temple alike…in fact it ( spring water) ran through the courtyard of the temple by the alter in a channel called the “amma”.

Both the Jebusites and Hebrews built many underground Qnats for the Gichon/ Shiloach/ Silwan Spring…it was the main water source for the Jebusites and for First Temple Jerusalem City inhabitants as well.

The comment provides interesting insights into the historical context of Mount Zion and its significance in the biblical narrative. Let’s add more detail and sources to support the information:

1. Philistines and the Exodus: The comment suggests that the Philistines were strong before the Exodus, influencing the route of the Hebrew slaves. While the comment doesn’t provide specific sources, historical records and archaeological findings support the existence of the Philistine civilization in the ancient Near East during the second millennium BCE. The Philistines were known as a seafaring people who settled along the southern coastal plain of present-day Israel. One can refer to archaeological studies and historical documents to explore the Philistine civilization’s strength during this period.
2. Mount Zion’s Origins: According to the comment, Mount Zion, also known as Mount Moriah and later the Temple Mount, is situated in Ir David, the old Jebusite city. The information aligns with biblical accounts, particularly in 2 Samuel 24:18-25, where King David purchases the threshing floor from Aruna, the Jebusite. This event is also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:18-30. The comment accurately points out that Mount Zion has historical ties to the Jebusites before it became a significant location for the Israelites.
3. Location of Mount Zion – Ir David: Ir David refers to the City of David, which is a historical and archaeological site just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. The information about Mount Zion being in Ir David corresponds with biblical narratives. The City of David has been extensively excavated, revealing layers of ancient structures that date back to the Bronze Age and Iron Age. Archaeological findings and studies by institutions like the Israel Antiquities Authority provide detailed insights into the historical layers of Ir David.
4. Gihon Spring and Silwan: The comment correctly identifies the Gihon Spring or Shiloach as a crucial water source near Mount Zion. The Gihon Spring is mentioned in the Bible, particularly in 1 Kings 1:33, where Solomon is anointed as king. Silwan, the Arab name for the area, is consistent with historical and contemporary toponyms. References to the Gihon Spring’s importance for purification in the Tabernacle and Temple can be found in biblical passages, such as 2 Chronicles 32:30.
5. Underground Qnats: Both the Jebusites and Hebrews building underground Qnats for the Gihon/Siloam Spring is a plausible claim. Ancient water systems and tunnels have been discovered in the City of David, providing evidence of sophisticated water management in ancient Jerusalem. Archaeological findings and studies by organizations like the City of David Foundation contribute to our understanding of these underground water channels.

In summary, while the comment lacks specific sources, the information aligns with biblical narratives and archaeological evidence from the City of David, supporting the historical context provided. Interested readers can further explore academic works, archaeological reports, and biblical studies to delve deeper into these topics.

———————————————–

The phrase “and had little to nothing to do with Amaleq (Exodus 13:17)” refers to a specific aspect of the biblical narrative found in the book of Exodus, highlighting that the route taken by the newly released Hebrew slaves during the Exodus was not directly connected to the Amalekites.

The biblical reference, Exodus 13:17, states: “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, ‘If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.'” (NIV)

This passage explains the divine decision to lead the Israelites on a longer route, avoiding the direct path through the land of the Philistines, which was seen as a more straightforward and potentially dangerous route. Instead, they were led through the wilderness toward the Red Sea.

The mention of Amalek in the phrase is significant because the Amalekites were a nomadic tribe in the region, and they are later portrayed in the biblical narrative as a recurring adversary to the Israelites.

The phrase is indicating that the chosen route was not influenced by an immediate confrontation with the Amalekites. The Amalekites do play a role later in the Exodus narrative, notably in Exodus 17 when they attack the Israelites at Rephidim, leading to the battle where Moses holds up his hands with the staff of God.

In essence, the statement in the comment is emphasizing that the decision to take an alternative route during the Exodus, as mentioned in Exodus 13:17, was not driven by an immediate threat or conflict with the Amalekites.

The avoidance of the Philistine route was primarily based on the concern that the Israelites might be discouraged by the prospect of facing war and choose to return to Egypt.