What are the differences and similarities of the Ancient Israel and the Modern Israel map?

4 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The United Kingdom included lands to the east of the Jordan River and a small part of the modern Lebanon, but didn't include the land to the Red Sea in the south. It also did not include Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Also, a part of the Northen Galilea was given by Solomon to the Phoenician King of Tyre in exchange for master craftsmen, skilled labourers, money, jewels, cedar, and other goods. David's Palace and Solomon's Temple are described as having been built with the assistance of these Tyrian assets, as well as to designs given by architects from Tyre.

    Today, the proper Israel has bigger territory it had during the reign of King Solomon when the Ancient Israel was in the zenith of its glory.

    However, the Ancient Israel had many vassal states like Philistia, Moab, Edom, Ammon, with a number of Aramaean city-states (Aram-Zobah and Aram-Damascus) also being the vassal states of the Ancient Israel; the imperial border stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Desert, from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River.

    So, we have still some work to do.

    P.S. about the ridiculous declaration by michardav that "there is no map of a united kingdom of ancient Israel, such an entity never existed".



    Edit, michardav: Maybe YOUR religious text- the Koran- was written during Muhammad´s life?

    Or maybe Bible was written when Jesus was alive?

    “Perhaps you can show ONE proof of a United Israel outside the Bible. ONE”

    First, and what´s so wrong with the Bible? It has been proved to be very correct by hundreds of the archaeological evidences. Or maybe you can offer us the proof that Bible is not correct?

    And second, there are proofs outside the Bible. On July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). The meaning of the finding is evident: a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.

    If you do not know the things known to anyone interested in history, then at least do not pass your ignorance for a Divine Knowledge.

    "most things about it therefore remain controversial."

    Being “controversial” just means that some historians think it was so while others think differently. You think it was differently? Very well. Then all the story about “Palestinians”, “Canaanites” and so on is not correct either. All the “Palestinian” history is based on the Bible.

  • 1 decade ago

    There is no map of a united kingdom of ancient Israel, such an entity never existed (there's plenty of speculative fictious ones though). If you wish to compare the North Kingdom of Israel with modern day Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_of_Isra... (Israel at it's heydey- King Omri)- note that Jerusalem was not part of Israel. here's modern Israel http://www.israelmapxl.com/images/political-map-of... (excluding the occupied territories which are still not Israeli regardless of what Zionists say)

    @rudeborris, if it's so ridiculous, then why is your map based on a religious text written centuries after the events? Perhaps you can show ONE proof of a United Israel outside the Bible. ONE. I read a book with a map of the area King Arthur ruled- does that prove he ruled from Cornwall to Orkney? WHO'S ridiculous?

    Please also note, rudeborris this quote from YOUR OWN SOURCE "Outside of the Bible, no evidence for the existence of the unified kingdom -- or for what shape it took, if it existed -- has ever been found, and most things about it therefore remain controversial."

    @rudeborris, sounds pretty desperate, the Tel dan stele does not say anything about a "united Israel" nor does it even mention a "King David". Just a "House David". The battle was against BOTH north Kingdom of Israel AND South Kingdom of Judah, not the mythical as shown by the mention of the Israeli king, which you conveniently didn't mention. Nor did you mention that the stele can actually be seen as evidence as AGAINST an United Israel as it clearly differentiates the two kingdoms as not only separate but only ONE (Judah- King Ahaziah) being descended from David. Good example of Zionist propaganda though. Hey, don't take my word for it, read yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

    Canaanites are mentioned outside of the Bible by the Assyrians, Egyptians, Hittites , Babylonians and Phoenicians.

  • 1 decade ago

    Ancient Israel included lands to the east of the Jordan River, and didn't extend all they way to the Red Sea in the south

    Modern Israel does extend to the Red Sea, but does not go east of the Jordan River (except in the Golan Heights)

    The Philistines also occupied much of coastal Israel for several centuries, now modern Israel has most of coast (except the Gaza Strip)

    Ancient Israel also included Judea and Samaria, whereas now they are occupied by the Palestinians

    Source(s): ..
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    i will communicate pertaining to to the similarity Jewish people have been the main sensible people interior the international in historic israel----------and that they nonetheless are the main sensible people on planet earth right this moment and additionally the main valuable people ever in mankinds background,even in contemporary israel in simple terms my truthful view solid success

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.