-
Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading
Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Historic -> smart factory Text Chapter 1359 The Jewish Kingdom
Previous page Return to Catalog Next page
- Chapter 1,359 The Jewish Kingdom
"The Bible says that other bronze works Huram made for Solomon's Temple include basins, spades and sprinkling bowls." In the Chinese version of the Bible in "1 Kings", "sprinkling bowl" is originally translated as "plate", and Two steel pillars, each eighteen cubits high and twelve cubits in circumference, he set up in front of the porch of the temple.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????? may erect a pillar on the right side, and may call it Jachin;
There are also Jachin and Boaz in the legend of Freemasonry. According to the "old-style ritual", these two huge pillars are hollow, and "ancient records" and "valuable writings" recording Jewish history must be contained inside Freemasonry. It will be claimed that these records contain the history of the Shami Magic Stone and its owners ""The fastest updated and fully text typed by hand
Scholars soon had new questions: What exactly is this "Sand Magic Stone"? Is it just a secret of Freemasonry? Is it mentioned in the Bible?
In fact, the word "Shami" only appears four times in the "Old Testament" and "New Testament", three of which are place names, and one is the name of a man.
Therefore, what is mentioned here is obviously not the "Shami Stone", but the latter is the secret that the Freemasons claim to have sealed in the copper pillar of Hulan, and was finally discovered in the Talmud and the Jewish Interpretation ""
Read the latest chapter
Moses had commanded the Israelites to "not touch the iron tools" when building the temple. Therefore, Solomon also commanded the craftsmen not to use hammers, axes and chisels when digging and carving the boulders for the outer walls and courtyards of the temple.
He provided the craftsmen with an ancient device that dates back to the time of Moses himself
This device is called "Sandmi" and can cut the hardest materials without friction or heat. "Sandmi" is also called "the stone that can split rocks." To save Shamik, do not put it in iron. Containers, nor any metal containers, as it will burn such containers to smithereens
It was necessary to wrap it in a sheep towel and put it in a lead box filled with wheat chaff. Unfortunately, after the temple was destroyed, Shami also disappeared.
The Sandmi Stone makes a mystery even more profound. The core of that mystery is the strong fortress on Mount Moriah.
What is the true nature of the inner temple, and the purpose of building it is very clear, that is to "place the ark of the covenant of the Lord." The Solomon's Temple has copper pillars, a sea of ??copper, a huge statue of a winged angel, and a gold inner hall.
This is obviously a carefully built special place, a focus of superstition and religious fear, and the center of Jewish faith and cultural life. So, how could the Ark of the Covenant disappear from it?
After the death of Solomon, Israel suffered several disasters of the sword. In one of the disasters, the Ark of the Covenant was taken away from the temple. The first disaster occurred in 926 BC, when Solomon's incompetent son Rehoboam reigned.
According to the records in the Old Testament 1 Kings, an Egyptian pharaoh named "Shishak" launched a large-scale invasion of Israel: In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt came up to attack Jerusalem and captured the Temple of the Lord. Take away all the treasures in the palace
This account is hopelessly brief, and nowhere does it indicate that Shishak's spoils did not include the Ark of the Covenant. But if the Ark was taken away only 30 years after Solomon put it in the temple, then there is reason to think that The biblical writers were sure to mention this event and lament the loss of this precious relic
However, they said nothing about this
This means one of two things: either the Ark had been secretly moved before the Egyptian army arrived, perhaps during the reign of Solomon, as Ethiopian legend says, or it could have been during the Egyptian invasion. The Ark of the Covenant was always in the inner temple
Shishak himself left a relief depicting a grand triumph in the Temple of Karnak in Egypt, and the content of the relief hints that he did not take away the Ark of the Covenant. Scholars are already very familiar with the Ark of the Covenant during their several visits to Egypt. block of reliefs, so it is certain that it makes no mention at all of the Ark of the Covenant, nor of the siege and sacking of Jerusalem for that purpose
An authoritative paper unambiguously declares that most of the towns Shishak sacked were located in northern Israel. The Bible states that the target of Shishak's attack was Jerusalem, but the inscription on the relief does not mention Jerusalem.
Although the inscription on this relief has been severely damaged, it is certain that Jerusalem was not listed as an attack target, because the attack locations listed in the inscription are sorted by geographical location, and Jerusalem is not included
So, what was the situation in the Holy City at that time to explain the emphasis in the Bible that Shishak plundered the treasures in the Temple of the Lord and the royal palace?
The consensus among scholars is that Shishak did indeed besiege Jerusalem, but he never really entered the city.into the holy city; indeed he also ¡°took away the treasures of the house of the LORD and of the king¡¯s palace.¡±
Some authoritative scholars believe that only a part of the Egyptian army passed through Jerusalem at that time, and those treasures were probably handed over by King Rehoboam. What's more, even if the Ark of the Covenant was still in Jerusalem in 926 BC, these treasures could not include the Ark of the Covenant.
On the contrary, these trophies were far less sacred. Most of them were folk and royal offerings to Jehovah. Most of them were quite valuable gold and silver products. These offerings were not placed in the inner sanctum of the temple, but in special places on the periphery of the temple. Among the treasuries, the Old Testament always refers to them as ¡°the treasury of the royal palace.¡±
A well-known biblical scholar pointed out: These treasures were sometimes robbed by foreign invaders, and sometimes used up by kings whose treasury was scarce. Therefore, the palace treasury was often full sometimes and sometimes empty
Therefore, Shishak¡¯s invasion did not involve the inner sanctum of Solomon¡¯s Temple at all, and it is completely wrong to link that invasion with the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant.
The same applies to the analysis of what appears to be the next sacking of Solomon's temple, by which time Israel, united by David and Solomon, had been divided into two rival kingdoms.
One is the ¡°Kingdom of Judah¡± in the south, which includes Jerusalem; the other is the ¡°Kingdom of Israel¡± in the north
In 796 BC, Joash, the king of the northern kingdom, and Amaziah, the king of the southern Jewish kingdom, fought in Bethshemesh. The Jews were defeated by the Israelites and each fled back to their homes.
When Ash, the king of Israel, captured Amaziah in Bethshemesh, he came to Jerusalem, tore down the walls of Jerusalem, and took away all the gold, silver, and weapons that were in the temple of the LORD and in the palace treasury.
Likewise, this sacking of the temple did not include the inner temple and the ark of the covenant. One authority on this period of history points out that Joash did not even enter the outer sanctuary of the temple, and certainly not the inner temple, said Joashna Taking away the treasures of the "House of the Lord" is just an abbreviation of "treasures of the House of the Lord"
It is not difficult to see this from the facts: the Bible always uses "treasures of the royal palace" and "treasures of the house of the Lord" in parallel
The truth about Shishak and Joash's robbery of Jerusalem is that neither of them announced that they had taken the Ark of the Covenant, and the Bible does not record that they did this. The reason is now clear: both of them They never entered the inner temple where the Ark of the Covenant was hidden, but only took away less precious gold and silver treasures.
However, the same could not be said for the most powerful invader who next sacked Jerusalem. He was King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He captured the holy city of Jerusalem twice, the first time in 598 B.C. He apparently entered Solomon's army. temple
The Bible describes this disaster like this: At that time, the troops of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to Jerusalem and besieged the remnant Nebuchadnezzar came in person
It was the eighth year of King Nebuchadnezzar when King Jehoiachin of Judea and his mother, the servants and the chief eunuchs, went out of the city to surrender to the king of Babylon, and the king of Babylon captured him.
The king of Babylon took away all the treasures from the temple of the LORD and from the royal palace, and destroyed all the gold vessels that King Solomon of Israel had built for the sanctuary of the LORD.
What did Nebuchadnezzar¡¯s spoils include? It is now known that the ¡°treasures of the house of the Lord and of the king¡¯s palace¡± could not include any sacred object like the Ark of the Covenant
? These terms have a very specific and clear meaning in the original Hebrew text, referring only to the less important treasures in the kingdom and temple treasury.
By far, a more important situation is: the Babylonian king "destroyed all the gold vessels in the sanctuary of the Lord which King Solomon of Israel had made." This was translated as "the sanctuary" by the translators of the "Jerusalem Bible" The word, whose exact meaning in Hebrew is "outer sanctuary"
In order to determine the exact location of the "Peripheral Sanctuary," it helps a lot to look at the architectural layout of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It was strictly modeled after the tripartite division of Solomon's Temple: "Built
This means that the "Holy House of the Lord" that Nebuchadnezzar sacked was not the inner temple where the Ark of the Covenant was placed, but the vestibule of the inner temple. In ancient Hebrew, the vestibule of the inner temple was called "de
¡°i¡± corresponds to the cella in Ethiopian churches where the tabote
Therefore, if the Ark of the Covenant was still in Solomon's Temple when Nebuchadnezzar first attacked Jerusalem, it can be concluded that the Babylonian king did not take away the Ark, but only "destroyed" and "taken it away" ¡± the ¡°gold vessels¡± that Solomon placed in the outer sanctuary
The names of the other treasures that Nebuchadnezzar robbed are quite specific. They are: the gold lampstands in front of the inner temple, five on the right and five on the left, as well as the gold lamps and wax scissors on them, and the gold cups. Plate, spoon, fire cauldron, and the inner sanctum of the Holy of Holies.??The door hinge, and the door hinge of the outer hall
According to research, the "de
"i" should be translated as "inner temple vestibule" rather than "inner temple", and "hekal" should be translated as "outer sanctuary" rather than "outer temple"; the Chinese translation of the Bible does not reflect these nuances
Of course, in this translation, "inne
ine¡± ¡°de.
duyidu.
Read it
The terms " and olyofolies" are interchangeable and all refer to the same sanctuary, the place where Solomon placed the Ark of the Covenant many centuries before.
When the scholars confirmed this view, they immediately saw the fact clearly: Although Nebuchadnezzar did not rob the inner temple, he still took away the door hinge of the inner temple.
Therefore, it can be concluded from this: the door of the inner temple was removed, and the Babylonian king or the soldiers who carried out his orders could see the situation in the front hall of the inner temple. This is a very important discovery.
In fact, this is a key discovery
When those Babylonians looked into the inner temple, they would have immediately seen the two gold-covered statues of winged angels that Solomon had placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant as guards. They would also have seen the Ark itself, which they had removed from the outside No compunction about gold on objects in the sanctuary
So the question has to be asked: Why didn't they rush into the vestibule immediately and strip a much larger amount of gold from the walls and statues? Why didn't they take the Ark as a trophy?
The Babylonians had always despised the Jews and their religion, so it would be a mistake to think that they would refrain from sacking the inner sanctum out of some philanthropic desire to avoid hurting the feelings of the conquered people.
On the contrary, all the evidence shows that if Nebuchadnezzar and his soldiers saw such rich prey as the ark of the covenant and the fine gold on the walls of the inner temple and the angel statues, they would not hesitate to loot them.
At that time, every time the Babylonians occupied a place, they would definitely steal the important idols and sacred objects worshiped by the locals, and transport them back to Babylon to enshrine them in front of the god Marduk in their temple.
The Ark of the Covenant is such an ideal offering. However, the Babylonians did not even touch the gold of the Ark of the Covenant, let alone bring it back intact.
In fact, both the Ark of the Covenant and the statue of the winged angel on the golden cover are all safe and sound.
A reasonable conclusion is that in 598 BC, when the Babylonians first invaded, the Ark of the Covenant and the gold-covered statue of a winged angel were no longer in the vestibule of the inner temple.
In fact, the gold on the four walls of the floor and the ceiling of the inner temple had been stripped away before this. This view seems to provide at least preliminary evidence for the Ethiopians claiming to own the Ark of the Covenant, because it has been confirmed: Shishak Ashish and Asch took away neither the Ark of the Covenant nor the other treasures in the vestibule of the inner temple, but they alone had obtained certain treasures from the temple before Nebuchadnezzar.
The Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 598 BC was certainly not the last launched by Nebuchadnezzar. If there is any evidence that Nebuchadnezzar took the Ark of the Covenant during his second sack of the Holy City, then , the conclusion will be proven to be completely wrong
After Nebuchadnezzar's successful invasion in 598 BC, he installed a puppet king named Zedekiah on the throne of Jerusalem. However, it turned out that this "puppet" had his own plans. In 589 BC, he began Raised an army against his Babylonian masters
Nebuchadnezzar immediately counterattacked. He marched into Jerusalem again, finally breached the city wall, and entered the holy city in early July 587 BC. Less than a month later, Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, a servant of the King of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. , and burned the temple of the LORD and the royal palace with fire, and burned the houses of Jerusalem
And all the army that followed the captain of the guard broke down the wall around Jerusalem, and they tore down the tin pillars of the house of the LORD, the basins of the house of the LORD, and the sea of ??bronze, and carried the bronze to Babylon.
He also brought pots, spatulas, wax scissors, spoons, and all the bronze utensils, incense burners, and watering bowls used to worship the North, regardless of whether they were gold or silver. The captain of the guard also took them.
The two pillars of steel, the sea of ??bronze, and the bases of basins that Solomon built for the house of the LORD were all too numerous to weigh.
The above content is all a detailed catalog provided by the Bible, that is, all the items and treasures Nebuchadnezzar took back from Babylon after he captured Jerusalem for the second time
There is still no Ark of the Covenant, no gold used by Solomon on the inner wall of the cella and the colossus of the winged angel, and the gold on the outside. This situation is very important.
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of anything other than the items on the list, so it is clear that the loot in 587 BC was just copper taken from the copper sea of ????copper and the basin base, and those items were four Made by Hulan a century agoThe items on this loot list can be corroborated with the items stolen from the Temple in 598 BC according to the Bible, which is a very strong indication of the authenticity of this list.
On that occasion, although Nebuchadnezzar did not take away the bronze vessels, he took away ¡°the treasures of the temple of the Lord and the king¡¯s palace¡± and stripped the gold from all the objects in the outer sanctuary.
Therefore, after 11 years, the only gold and silver that Nebusaradan looted was some incense burners and watering bowls. He did not find anything more valuable. The reason is simple: in 598 BC, all the best things had been looted. Babylon
The Ark of the Covenant was not included in the loot of both times, so the conclusion is that at some time before the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem, the Ark of the Covenant must have been no longer in Solomon¡¯s Temple.
According to this line of thinking, another often-cited explanation for the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant becomes increasingly untenable. That explanation is that when Nebuzaradan set fire to the temple, the Ark of the Covenant must have been destroyed by the fire.
If the Ark of the Covenant was really sent away before 598 BC, then it certainly escaped the catastrophe when Solomon's Temple was destroyed
However, based on this chain of reasoning alone, is it certain that the Ark of the Covenant has been moved to Ethiopia?
Of course not. Through further research, some legends in the Jewish Kingdom provide several different versions of the whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant. Any one of them, as long as it is strong enough, can deny the legend that "the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia"
Therefore, these claims all deserve to be weighed carefully
"The hidden and twisted cellar" The first question to be clarified is: only when the second temple was being built, did the Jewish people discover that the Ark of the Covenant was missing, and realized that the disappearance of the Ark of the Covenant was a huge mystery. They were confused. , suddenly found that the artifact was gone (to be continued) - Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report
- Previous pageCatalogNext page