There is no evidence that Jerusalem in antiquity had rivers or creeks. The city is located on a mountain in a semi-arid region, and its survival for millennia has depended on groundwater sources…So why do so many pre 1800s images of Jerusalem have rivers and creeks?
Posted by LionHeart_CA
7 Comments
why do Polish and Ukrainian Khazars insist the come from there ? there are a million unanswered questions regarding jerusalem
SS: There is **no evidence that Jerusalem had rivers or large creeks** and yet so many pre 1800 paintings show flowing rivers and creeks. Did artists just add them or is there a different reason the pre- 1800 images have rivers and creeks?
They used the Bible as a source for what the city looked like instead of what it actually looks like. It has a dry canyon that was exaggerated to look like big flowing river
The images pre-date photographs. Were these painted by European artists who had never visited Jerusalem and just made some assumptions about the landscape?
Rivers and creeks dry up?
From brave browser: The Kidron Valley is technically a wadi (a dry riverbed or seasonal ravine) rather than a permanent river, as it carries water only during heavy winter rains. Historically, it was fed by the Gihon Spring, which flowed through the valley before being diverted into Jerusalem’s ancient water systems, and it eventually empties into the Dead Sea.
From wiki: The spring is under the control of the israeli organization Ir david Foundation it is sometimes used by jewish men as a sort of ritual bath
The Gihon spring and the pool of siloam are pretty well attested. There were a few sources of water in the area if I’m not mistaken. But pretty much all old paintings are historically inaccurate. Just like the gospels, they are just telling a story, not relating actual historical events.