Jerusalem is just a pile of dirt with receipts from Torah

I am copy/pasting this from another forum but I am the original author. This is not AI generated, I simply spent a long time editing and polishing, hoping to have a friendly debate. I did not receive friendly and I certainly did not receive debate. I examined the Torah’s internal logic.
**
The Geographical Displacement of the Pentateuchal Holy Site/Sites**

The Torah establishes a tribal geographic theology centered on the Shechem/Gerizim corridor. The Masoretic tradition represents a later systematic effort to uproot these ancient events and move them to Jerusalem, a location that is statistically and contextually absent from the Torah. The Masoretic text relies on a future tense loophole in Deuteronomy (‘the place the Lord WILL choose’) to justify a “later” political move. The Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch show that the choice had already been made in the north long before a Jebusite hill was ever purchased by David. The name Jerusalem itself stands as a linguistic Frankenstein, a sectarian fusion of Israel’s most sacred assets. It takes the ‘Vision’ (Moreh/Moriah) of the Shechem hills and grafts it onto the ‘Peace’ (Salim/Shalem) of the Shechem plains. This “Vision of Peace” has been the focal point of conflict for thirty centuries.

That which can be destroyed by the truth ought to be.

The Law of the Altar and the Unhewn Stone (Exodus 20:25)
The Torah demands an altar of unhewn stone, untouched by iron tools. Joshua 8:30 and Deuteronomy 27 place this specific, divinely mandated altar on Mt. Gerizim (per the SP/Old Latin) or Ebal (per the MT). Jerusalem’s temple was defined by the sound of iron tools and massive cut stone masonry. If the “Place of Choice” must be an altar of unhewn stone, Jerusalem’s platform is a violation of the very law it claims to fulfill. The LXX and SP preserve the memory of the first altar in the north, while the MT creates a future tense ambiguity in Deuteronomy to allow for a later Judean shift. The Masoretic Text asks us to believe in a God of the Gap who issues a mandate for an altar in Deuteronomy 27, but leaves its location a mystery. Yet, in Deuteronomy 11:30, the GPS coordinates are explicitly clear: the blessing is to be set beside the Oaks of Moreh. By the MT’s own admission, the ‘Place of Choice’ is tethered to the very spot where Abraham first stood (Gen 12) and where Jacob bought his first field (Gen 33).

The Akedah and the Three Day Journey (Genesis 22)
Abraham travels from Beersheba to “Moriah.” When you pull this geographical loose thread the story unravels quite a lot because you find another linguistic nugget. The topography of the Binding in Genesis 22 renders the southern “Moriah” an obvious mismatch. On the third day of his journey, the text states Abraham “lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off.” Jerusalem is tucked into a topographic bowl; its central hills are obscured by a surrounding rim of higher ridges, making them invisible from afar to a traveler approaching from the south. Conversely, Mount Gerizim—the original Moreh—is a 900-meter limestone monolith that dominates the horizon for tens of kilometers. Abraham did not need a miracle to see the “Vision” (Moreh); he only needed to look at the most prominent landmark in central Israel. The northern Moreh is a geographic inevitability; the southern Moriah is a revisionist neologism. Abraham first receives the promise at the Oak of Moreh (Shechem). In the MT, this is later linked to the Temple Mount. It is roughly 40 miles from Beersheba to Jerusalem—a journey easily completed in under two days. However, Genesis 22:4 specifies that Abraham saw the place “from a distance” on the third day. The distance from Beersheba to Shechem (Gerizim) is roughly 75 miles which is a perfect three-day journey for a man who spent his life walking, taking with him Isaac, two servants and a donkey on a well established road along a watershed ridge with places to stop for food, water and safety. The LXX translates Moriah as tēn gēn tēn hypsēlēn (“the lofty land”), mirroring the description of the “Lofty Oak” (Moreh) at Shechem. The MT redacted the name to Moriah to create a phonological link to the Temple Mount, but the travel data in the text still points to the north. The Masoretic Text preserves the name “Moreh” but attempts to sever its connection to the “Moriah” of the Akedah. By using the LXX/NETS as a baseline, we see that the ancient translators understood these as the same “Lofty” region.

Jacob’s Ladder (Genesis 28)
Jacob names the place Bethel (House of God) and declares it the “Gate of Heaven.” In the MT, Bethel and Jerusalem are distinct (and often rival) cities. Yet, the MT claims Jerusalem is the only House of God. The Masoretic Text doesn’t even agree with itself. To argue for Jerusalem, one must ignore the clear geographic coordinates laid down by the Patriarchs. In Genesis 35:1-4, Jacob is in fear for his life after Shimon and Levi kill the sons of Hamor. He tells them to bury the foreign idols they took and ascend Bethel. It’s clear that this wasn’t a journey but to climb the hill just there. Even in the Masoretic Text, Jacob on his deathbed recalls God appearing to him at “Luz in the land of Canaan.” I have to emphasize for gravitas the value of this passage as evidence. This is from Genesis 49 and it’s Jacob speaking. I’m thinking the guy named Israel knew where in Israel was the real Dwelling of HIS Majesty. He doesn’t say “Bethel in the land of Benjamin.” He uses the original northern location. The name of the Samaritan village on the slope of Mount Gerizim is Kiryat Luza and that is still the name to the present. They didn’t move; they didn’t rename a new town “Luz” to fit a new theology. They are the only ones who can point to a physical location that matches the phonetic and topographic description of the original text.

The Appropriation of Salem and Melchizedek from Shechem (Genesis33)
The final geographic glue used to adhere Jerusalem into the Torah is the retrospective identification of “Salem” with the later Judean hill. However, the internal map of the Pentateuch, supported by the Septuagint and the Samaritan tradition, reveals that Salem wasn’t a Judean hill, but a well-known region of Shechem. The Torah states in Genesis 33:18 that upon returning from Harran, Jacob came to “Salim, a city of Shechem”. He is in the shadow of Mount Gerizim, purchasing land from the sons of Hamor. The text identifies a specific “Salem” firmly established in the North as a site of Patriarchal purchase and altar-building. The Masoretic tradition must effectively ignore the coordinates of Genesis 33 to claim that the “Salem” of Genesis 14 is a different city located 30 miles to the south. In Genesis 14, Abraham is returning from the “Slaughter of the Kings”. The natural, ancient route through the hill country, the “Way of the Patriarchs” passes directly through the Valley of Shechem where Salim is. It does not require a detour into the rugged, then-insignificant Jebusite hills. Melchizedek, as the “King of Salem,” meets Abraham. The LXX and the SP preserve the memory of this valley as being in the vicinity of the “Lofty Oak” (Moreh) at Shechem. Even the New Testament (John 3:23) preserves the memory of “Salim near Aenon”—a site located in the Northern Jordan Valley near Shechem. The name “Salim/Salem” remained firmly attached to the Shechem geography for millennia. The Masoretic Text performs a geographic double-speak: it admits in Genesis 33 that “Shalem” is in Shechem, but then asks the reader to believe that in Genesis 14, “Salem” is a city that won’t actually be called Jerusalem for centuries yet. By re-labeling Jerusalem as “Salem,” the Masoretic redactors stole the credentials of the most ancient priesthood in the land—the “High God” at the “High Place”—to justify a later Zadokite priesthood in the South.

The Judean sect didn’t just break from Israel; they sliced up its map and tried to glue those pieces onto a Jebusite mound of dirt. If the Pentateuch is the constitutional document of the Twelve Tribes, why does it go to such exhaustive lengths to map the Shechem/Gerizim topography—Jacob’s well, the Oak of Moreh, the Altar of Joshua while remaining completely silent on the name ‘Jerusalem’? If the ‘Choice’ was intended for a Jebusite hill, the Torah is not just silent; it is geographically absurd. We are left with a stolen covenant—where the birthright of Joseph and the landmarks of the Patriarchs were made serve the political aims of a later monarchy. But as the LXX and the dust of Shechem testify, the truth was never hidden—it was always there on Har Gerizim.**

Confronting the Physical Record and Tyranny of the Text**

History is often buried, but it is rarely silent. When the archaeological record of a landscape remains blank for centuries, we are forced to choose between a miracle or a misunderstanding. It is time we examine the administrative labels of the Amarna archives and gather the material evidence to find the actual geography of the 14th century BCE Jebusite hill. The argument that the evidence is hidden is a classic unfalsifiable claim. It is a logical fallacy that should be rejected in any academic endeavor. I invite you to stop averring for what isn’t there and start seeing the landscape as it actually was. Follow the evidence.

A city does not beg for a few dozen foreign troops to secure its perimeter.

The Bronze Age Post Office
This is the strongest piece of material evidence. The Amarna Letters are 14th century BCE clay tablets proven conclusively to have (mostly) originated in what is today called Jerusalem. At least two were completed elsewhere in the Egyptian Province of Mat Urusalim. The specific location within the province in which the majority of the tablets originated is the Jebusite hill now called Jerusalem along the Imperial Highway which became known as the Way of the Patriarchs. As will be shown, this hill was home to little more than a hamlet, too insignificant even to serve as the administrative center for such a province. This was likely the only place in the province peaceful enough for the scribes to work and it is located on the junction of the Ascent of Beth Horon, linking the highland province to the road secured by Egyptian garrisons. This was a crucial connection for a Vassal beleaguered by insurrection.

The Geographic Synecdoche
In the Amarna age, Abdi-Heba refers to the “Lands [Mat] of Urusalim,” a term used for broad territorial districts like Amurru or Gath, not for a single municipal zipcode. Does a governor of “The Northwest Territory” have to live in a city called “Northwest Territory”? The Amarna Letters are official state correspondence. Abdi-Heba used the Imperial/Provincial name because he was writing to his boss (the Pharaoh). The local name, Jebus, was irrelevant to the Egyptian tax records, if we assume this backwater even had a name at that time. “Urusalim” was a provincial designation for a highland district. The Execration Texts mention a powerful entity named Rushalimum as early as 1900 BCE. An empire does not waste state rituals and expensive scribal labor to curse a two-acre checkpoint with no walls, no palace, no urban center and no monuments at all. They were cursing a regional threat, the highland tribal confederacy that worshipped a God of the Dusk.

The Archeological Gap
Decades of excavation in the Ophel and the City of David have failed to produce a single fortified wall or monumental building from the Late Bronze Age. The “hidden under the Mount” theory relies on the assumption that a city-state could exist for 500 years without leaving a trace in its surrounding topography. Archeology is the study of what remains, not the imagination of what might be. To claim an entire city is “hidden” is to retreat from evidence into mythology. Where is the trash heap? Is it under that new parking lot? Nadav Na’aman and Israel Finkelstein have documented a meager archaeological footprint for 14th-century BCE Jerusalem. The strongest evidence for a real pre-Davidic city long relied on the massive Gihon Spring Tower, built of 7-meter-thick cyclopean boulders. Until recently, this was dated to the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1800 BCE), suggesting a powerful civilization existed 800 years before David. Recent radiocarbon testing on organic matter found underneath the tower’s base has squarely dated this to have been built in the 9th century BCE (after David). An urban center, even a small one leaves a halo of trash middens filled with bones, ash, and thousands of pottery sherds. In the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BCE) layers of Jerusalem, this halo is entirely missing.

I know it is difficult to look at 3,000 years of tradition and admit it was a re-branding. We have all been taught to see a capital where there was only a post office. But if we can look at the Amarna record with fresh eyes, we aren’t losing a history; we are finally finding the real one. Join me in setting the record straight.

Would you be so kind as to tell what your position / role is in this?

Are you an archaeologist?

Are you writing this with any political agenda in mind?

What’s your personal take on the Bible and the Torah?

Please inform us of these things so that we can have a better idea of who you are.

Thank you,

Walter.

1 Like

Rather than posting a wall of text and expecting debate on a specialist subject, try introducing each subject point as if we are all ignorant of the subject matter.

Welcome to AR forum.

1 Like

I’m an American who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan didn’t feel like a religiously motivated war for either side, but Iraq did. I was Christian. I thought Jerusalem was a holy city. The mindless sectarian violence was more than most can imagine. I’m not saying the US is fighting holy wars or holding high morals. But what I saw, was religious violence.

October 7th got me thinking again. About the IRGC and their Elite unit Al Quds and their Mahdist version of Twelver Shia. So Why is everyone fighting over Jerusalem? What is so holy about it in the foundational document of the first religion to apparently inhabit it?

So that’s where I’m coming from. In depth theological knowledge, specifically from the Torah. The internal logic of the Torah dissected with regard to Jerusalem.

The subject is truncated into the very first few lines at the top of the post. Thes are all premises. Jerusalem is a meaningless pile of dirt even in the very document that is meant to establish it.

A quick search for this title reveals the forum in question.

Where you call yourself Song of the Sea.

And you have been quite active…

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Search found 78 matches

Go to advanced search

Search found 78 matches by Song of the sea

Sat Feb 07, 2026 12:55 am

Forum: The Lounge

Topic: Meanwhile, in “Archaeology”…

Replies: 7

Views: 193

Re: Meanwhile, in “Archaeology”…

No need to politicize it if the people who originally built it still exist as a demographic group and have little to say. I think the spray painted symbols are offensive but that’s my opinion nobody asked for. For more opinions, I think expropriation is a strong word that implies purpose and agenda …

by Song of the sea

Sun Jan 25, 2026 7:03 am

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: Some Terminus Post Quem Considerations

Replies: 1

Views: 232

Re: Some Terminus Post Quem Considerations

Thank you for this. I think it’s going over a lot of people’s heads or maybe they’re just occupied or focused on the crazy things happening in January 2026. I’d like to go through it line by line but I don’t want to be the center of attention so I’ll start with Iron and wait. I have given considerat…

by Song of the sea

Sun Jan 25, 2026 4:02 am

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: A Material Refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis

Replies: 1

Views: 391

Re: A Material Refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis

This inquiry seeks to reclaim the origin of the Pentateuchal core from the scrolls of late Persian-era redactors to the oral and epigraphic landscape of the pre-monarchic highlands of the Northern Kingdom. By treating the Samaritan Pentateuch not as a sectarian departure from a Judean Ur-text, but a…

by Song of the sea

Sat Jan 24, 2026 4:21 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: The Geographical Displacement of the Pentateuchal Holy Site/Sites

Replies: 1

Views: 247

Re: The Geographical Displacement of the Pentateuchal Holy Site/Sites

Confronting the Physical Record and Tyranny of the Text History is often buried, but it is rarely silent. When the archaeological record of a landscape remains blank for centuries, we are forced to choose between a miracle or a misunderstanding. It is time we examine the administrative labels of th…

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:50 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Replies: 41

Views: 3924

Re: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Nothing you said really deals with the points I made. We know how Egyptian administrative centers looked like from Beit She’an. Yes, that wasn’t a large city. Still, a place named “Foundation of Salim” is expected to have a temple for that god somewhere. The Temple Mount would be the logi…

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:48 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: The Geographical Displacement of the Pentateuchal Holy Site/Sites

Replies: 1

Views: 247

The Geographical Displacement of the Pentateuchal Holy Site/Sites

The Torah establishes a tribal geographic theology centered on the Shechem/Gerizim corridor. The Masoretic tradition represents a later systematic effort to uproot these ancient events and move them to Jerusalem, a location that is statistically and contextually absent from the Torah. The Masoretic …

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:20 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Replies: 41

Views: 3924

Re: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

The point still stands or even corroborates it. There’s this big black box in the archeology of Jerusalem underneath the temple plateau. If we consider that the place was important enough to station an Egyptian garrison, that had to be located somewhere. And, of course, the name Jerusalem was alrea…

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 2:54 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Replies: 41

Views: 3924

Re: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

The Amarna Letters describe Urusalim as a significant administrative center with an Egyptian garrison and a palace. However, decades of excavations in Jerusalem’s City of David have found almost no Late Bronze Age fortifications or substantial buildings. As long as the Temple Mount cannot be excava…

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 12:55 pm

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Replies: 41

Views: 3924

Re: Only Shechem and Mt. Gerizim had Validation in the Pentateuch

Melchizedek himself may be not Nonetheless it’s a key part of Jerusalem myth. This was how the Zadok line was fabricated. The Amarna Letters describe Urusalim as a significant administrative center with an Egyptian garrison and a palace. However, decades of excavations in Jerusalem’s City of David …

by Song of the sea

Fri Jan 23, 2026 9:11 am

Forum: Jewish Texts and History

Topic: A Material Refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis

Replies: 1

Views: 391

A Material Refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis

The Documentary Hypothesis is the only ‘scientific’ model that requires a total absence of evidence to remain ‘unfalsifiable.’ Not even the sands of Qumran could produce a single page from a ‘source’ that only exists in a Wellhausenian hallucination. These 19th-century models were predicated on the …

Search found 78 matches

So why do you want to post this material here, in a site populated by agnostics, atheists and sceptics?

Yes, I am that user.

Then why post your material here?

Do you ever debate theology with people who hold a belief? Would you not like to see how I prevailed in debates with PhDs and authors? The points I have made that I have yet to receive rebuttals?

Do you have to accept a notion in order to examine it? Is Torah debate not welcome? Would you prefer i defend the Torah even though I am disillusioned with it so that you can take the posture of skeptic and debate a “believer”?

Did I offend you? Really, is the subject matter inappropriate?

The simple asking of a single question should not be the cause of any defensiveness on your part.

I have not called anything about your beliefs, credentials or abilities into question.

So your salvo of eight questions fired in my direction seems excessive AND defensive to me.

And no, I’m not the offended one here. But you seem to be.

But putting that aside…

If you don’t consider these questions to be too personal, why and how did you become disillusioned with the Torah? What did it mean to you before you became disillusioned with it?

Fyi expectingban, here’s how this forum works.

Atheists, agnostics and sceptics join to share their thoughts and to be part a likeminded community. But when it comes to the believers (mostly Christians) who join, they are often on a mission. They roughly break down into three groups.

Those who enter into debate with the specific aim of bringing us to God. They work on the premise that we were never real Christians in the first place or have simply become atheists because we don’t see the truth.

Those who enter into debate with us with the specific aim of bringing us back to God. They work on the premise that the Ex-Christians among us have fallen away and that God has appointed them as messengers to bring us back to the truth.

Finally, there are those who believe they ARE God. Their mission usually consists of them trying to prove to us that they are God, using Bible quotes, numerology, pseudo-science and similar crap.

You don’t fall into any of those groups and all we know about you is that you were a Christian and that you became disillusioned with the Torah. The first is not so unusual. Some of us here used to be Christians.

But the second is unusual. Most Christians look to the New Testament as the basis of their faith, looking back to the Old to support what the New tells them. So your position here seems atypical. A Christian who became disillusioned with the Torah? I’ve never encountered that before.

Hence my questions to you about why you became disillusioned with it and what it meant to you, as a Christian, before that disillusionment. I’m not having a dig at you. I just want to know more about your past beliefs so that I can compare them to your current ones.

Thank you,

Walter.

2 Likes

Sure, if it’s interesting. This seems like a highly specialist debate about various theological nits, though, and I doubt many here would find it interesting.

I come from a Christian fundamentalist background and have a year of formal training in one of their “Bible institutes” & so at least from that slanted perspective have more ability to hold my own than most in such debates, but I’ve kind of moved on from that over the past thirty years.

Ultimately, THAT is just a “pile of dirt” and a lot of rectconning, just as you’re suggesting with the provenance of various events in the Jewish mythos.

More broadly, lots of things are like that. For example, the value of money isn’t very “real”, especially since the gold standard went away. It is just declared to have value by fiat and is used as a medium of exchange because enough people agree that it has value. The US is likely about to find out how ephemeral the value of the dollar as a reserve (or, really, petrodollar) currency is. Other examples are the value of social capital and standing on social media and elsewhere, the concept of “manifest destiny”, just a whole slew of things.

So I have little doubt that various events (to the extent they happened at all) have been retconned to center around Jerusalem, taking advantage of the imprecise language in the Torah. Just exactly as Christians have interpreted various texts that weren’t even attempts at “prophecy” but rather references to figures contemporary to the authors, to “prove” that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

So all the specialist details aside, I suspect you’re substantially correct but it’s also a story old as time.

I am interested in the same get-to-know-you questions as Walter. You sound like you come from a Jewish background that you’re questioning. If so, you will find plenty of others here with a need to make sense of their foundational assumptions about reality that probably seem strange to people who are not thusly burdened.

At any rate, welcome to the forum.

1 Like

Firstly, I must hasten to admit that I didn’t read it all. It is just too much of a specialist analysis for me to grab hold of and follow. I leave that kind of literary analyses to those who know how to do it, as I don’t. That being said, I don’t quite grasp what it is you want to discuss, as it is not clear from the OP.

As for me, going deep into detailed analyses of any religious text seems uninteresting for me if the purpose is to show that it is just man-made myth. That’s shifting the burden of proof. For me, it is quite simple: religious folks bring forth their god claims, so they have the burden of evidence. It is not up to nonbelievers like most active people in here to assume general religious claims as true by default, and then disprove the claims.

@expectingban, as a Mod here, allow me to welcome you to this debate forum. You are as welcome here as anyone else. The Debate Forum is a place for any a/theist to discuss beliefs. We ask ALL participants to be respectful of each other. You, like anyone else, will be banned ONLY if you behave like an asshole…no bigotry of any kind, no treats of violence, no doxxing, etc., is allowed. Unless a behavior is particularly egregious, we typically warn folks first if we consider something to be unacceptable.
My advice for engaging in productive discussion is to write succinct posts and directly answer direct questions.

1 Like

I’m sure it was like that in the beginning.