I was surprised yesterday to see many objections to this post, mostly from a religious point of view. Here are a couple of principles that should guide the modern looking at the text: 1. The text we have is written by Man. 2. It reflects the situation at the time of writing. 3. It was written for some need existing at the time of writing./ Regarding my post, you don't need to believe in Abraham, but you should believe that the writer or contemporaries believed in him. Likewise for Melchizedek. I tried to make the post as little controversial as possible, so I refrained from offering a date for the texts. But obviously, they are no later than the Second Temple. My point is that already over 2 thousand years ago, our ancestors knew Jerusalem as having been ruled by Melchizedek, a non-Jew, who was respected by them. Archeology also knows of a Temple in pre-Israelite Jerusalem (to the Sun god). The Bible also does not claim that Jerusalem was started by the Jews. Now you can read the post and realize how today's nationalistic view is too modern to be respectable.
India hangs only man sentenced to die for 1993 Mumbai blasts (AP)
from the article: Netanyahu: Arabs and Jews alike benefit from unified Jerusalem