Talk:Ophir

[Untitled]

Johngregoria - Thanks for your contributions, but without providing sources it looks like original research - which isn't allowed in articles. You can find out more about original research and citing sources here...

I feel many of the theories stated lack citations--Avedeus (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No_original_research

If you can provide reliable sources for your information, please feel free to add it back into the article.

-- Purple Wyrm (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hadon of Ancient Opar.jpg

The image Image:Hadon of Ancient Opar.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Insight on the News

A quote a magazine

Insight on the News (From the magazine Awake! on 1976) Solomon’s Mines Found?

● In the days of King David and King Solomon of ancient Israel, a place called “Ophir” was the source of fabulous amounts of gold. Much of the known gold supply of the ancient world is thought to have originated there. In the Bible book of First Chronicles, chapter 29, verse 4, King David is spoken of as donating 3,000 talents of gold from Ophir to the temple at Jerusalem, an amount valued at hundreds of millions of dollars today. Solomon’s trading fleets regularly brought back large amounts of gold from Ophir. (1 Ki. 9:26-28) There was so much gold then that silver was spoken of as being of relatively little value.—1 Ki. 10:21.

Now geologists say that they may have found “King Solomon’s Mine” in Saudi Arabia. Between Mecca and Medina is an area, located in a mountainous region, known as the “Cradle of Gold.” There geologists found a vast abandoned gold mine. Among their finds are huge quantities of waste rock, an estimated million tons, left by the ancient miners, still containing traces of gold. Thousands of stone hammers and grindstones used to extract the gold from the ore litter the mine slopes. Said geologist Robert W. Luce: “Our investigations have now confirmed that the old mine could have been as rich as described in biblical accounts.”--Standforder (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Zimbabwe??

What's with this claim? Great Zimbabwe is a site out of medieval times (11th century and later). This article should not refer to speculations that are now known to be baseless. Cush (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If this was a claim first made by some modern-day author only last year through a web publisher, I might agree. But the identification of Ophir with Zimbabwe dates to Vasco de Gama. This is historiography, and thus encyclopedic. That is to say, we are about the history of what people used to think, not just what people think today - just as long as we accurately note the difference. 141.152.53.5 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Vasco da Gama is no authority on dating African cultures that Europeans of his day were not exactly familiar with. This wrong assumption by da Gama may be interesting for anecdotal history but not in connection with really identifying biblical Ophir. Solomon (or on whomever the biblical tale is based) cannot have had links to a culture that existed over 1900 years after him. Cush (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting and encyclopedic; but of course the article isn't suggesting that da Gama was at all correct. But most attempts to identify people/places from Genesis 10 were made over the course of long centuries, so their articles always include what the various authorities have ever speculated in connection with the relevant topic (Ophir in this case), even if it is no longer held by anyone. Notice we similarly report what John Milton, Max Muller, Flavius Josephus, and Alvaro Mendana have speculated about the possible identity of Ophir, even if nobody holds their views today. By your argument, we would have to erase all of that, and leave only "David Hatcher Childress" as a currently held opinion. 141.152.53.5 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseless speculation by whomever is not encyclopedic. If one comes to this article one wants to know what possible locations there are for Ophir. And Great Zimbabwe is not ancient and subsequently not a possible location. Period. Cush (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, and you might want to read up on our policies like NPOV. We do what every single comparable article does, and that is report whatever historiographical ideas are relevant to the topic - whether they are considered "baseless" today or not. It is suppressing of this historiographic information that is not encyclopedic, and must be resisted. Encyclopedias tell people the history of what people used to think. By contrast, the system described in Orwell's 1984 tells people only what they are supposed to think today - and it is forbidden even to mention what they used to think and aren't "supposed to" be thinking anymore. If wikipedia followed such a mentality, we wouldn't even make article histories available - only the current revision. 141.152.52.159 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a pointless and highly unscientific approach. An article needs reliable sources, and Vasco da Gama is not only unreliable but plainly wrong. This article is about the possible location of Ophir. Great Zimbabwe is not one of them. Wikipedia is not a collection of debunked ideas. Cush (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all encyclopedias from the beginning have always been collections of debunked ideas. Why shouldn't they be? It's called "historiography". Wikipedia is not the memory hole. We always explain what people used to think, and why nobody thinks that now - or, if perhaps any schools of thought today actually still do persist in thinking this, we should especially seek to mention that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please create a "History" or "Past identifications" section for that. I don't want to read in the "Location" section where it is certainly not located. Cush (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I will change the section title to "Theorized locations" to make it clearer, since it is not even provable that it was a historical polity anywhere, as opposed to a legendary land, so actually all locations given are, or were, only theorized or conjectural locations. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Or even that it was ever believed to be a polity at all, as opposed to simply a rich land... I see no reference in the Bible to the people or culture of Ophir, only its natural resources.Vultur (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it must be made very clear that Great Zimbabwe is not even remotely a possible location for Ophir because of the anachronism. There is simply no connection between the medieval Great Zimbabwe culture and anything that happened in ancient times. E.g. there is no identification of Great Zimbabwe with the place that the "queen of Sheba" (as erroneously suggested in the earlier version of the article) came from because Great Zimbabwe did not exist for another 1800 years in the timeframe of said queen. Just because people in the Renaissance period made associations does not give these associations any validity (neither then nor today) Cush (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Arabia and Pakistan?

From the article: "Most modern scholars still place Ophir either on the coast of either Pakistan or India, in what is now Poovar, or somewhere in southwest Arabia in the region of modern Yemen." Really? Pakistan has no apes and probably didn't in Biblical times, and Arabia certainly had neither apes, peacocks, nor ivory in the Biblical period. India has all three (so does Africa, but the Congo Peafowl is far too far inland for anyone with contact with the Israelites of 1000-900 BC to have encountered). And where does the assumption that Ophir was a major city come from? The Bible only mentions it as a source of riches; the catching of peacocks, ivory hunting, gold mining etc. could all have been done by a relatively small group which isn't well recorded in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is generally identified with Abhira now. Reasons are, they were both people and name of country. They are still found in India, and peacock, apes and sandalwood all are found in India only. [http://books.google.com/books? id=KpINAQAAIAAJ&q=ophir+abhira&dq=ophir+abhira&ei=f5FoS-SrGZ-CkASYsPDkBg&cd=5]. Probable destinations include, Sind(Pakistan) and more probably Gujrat(India), because river Indus flowed through the country of Abhira, and Ophir is supposed to be a port. It is also suggested they went further inside the sind sailing through river Indus. Ikon ^No-Blast 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"They are still found in India, and peacock, apes, and sandalwood all are found in India only." factually false statement. All three of these can be found in Sri Lanka and never was a part of India in a historical sense. The island always had a separate identity and name. Lipwe (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ophir is a town of Abhira

Ophir is a town of Abhira tribe.

The Hindu world: an encyclopedic survey of Hinduism, Volume 2

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lSGUTb6eOMzRrQfSobH9Cw&ct=result&id=iGjXAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhira+afghanistan&q=abhira+

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ejEMAAAAIAAJ&q=abhira+afghanistan&dq=abhira+afghanistan&hl=en&ei=LCyUTc-bI8jmrAe7n6XnCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCTgy

The East and the West, Volume 5-page-193

Watch out for the Filipinos

Just a heads-up. A YouTube channel (The God Culture) has been spreading the Philippines-Ophir myth for quite some time now, and it's starting to gain ground among validation-seeking Filipinos. It may sound plausible at first, but thorough understanding of the nature of Ophir and awareness of the various theories equips the listener/viewer in countering the assumptions which the author insists is biblical and historical. It may be wise to restrict editing for this page before they drop by. I am Filipino myself which is why I am concerned, and unfortunately no effort has been made yet by any historical expert to address this issue point by point and so the unfounded theory persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightvisiongoggles (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Which one of his claims is "unfounded", can you be specific and point out one detail that he mentions that's erroneous? 2620:106:A000:500:F98B:F66E:5A16:42E2 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have disagreed with him in his YouTube videos myself since he hates Jesuits and my sister is a Jesuit educated woman studying genetic engineering. However, the person who is ardently saying that the Philippines is Ophir isn't even Filipino himself, he's an American (The God Culture). The most impassioned fighters of lost, hidden and destroyed Filipino culture aren't Filipino themselves. It's because of people like you, self-hating Filipinos who shame us proud Filipinos that force foreigners to take up the cudgel on our behalf.

Hate the self-hate! Peace and love! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Sarabia, it seems you have a solid evidence that the Philippines is Ophir. There is nothing close to Ophir in pre-colonial Philippines; the archipelago (including its neighbors) does not even have the apes and peacocks described in the Biblical account.

Your sister's Jesuit education has nothing to do with that channel's theories.

Do not equate objective, critical analysis with self-hate. To dismiss that erroneous theory is to affirm the historical accuracy of the Philippines and not to be deluded with embellishments and fallacious, unbiblical, and unhistorical claims. The Philippine archipelago does not have to claim it is Ophir, it is even malicious to assume so without proper understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightvisiongoggles (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Opone or Punt

I'm pretty surprised to see that nobody has claimed that Ophir is really equivalent to Opone given that it also traded in the same goods and is associated with the Land of Punt which has a similar mythical status as a source of riches and exotic flora \ fauna.

The Most proven theory

The God Culture made a long Solomon's gold series on the location of Ophir. He is now making 100 videos proving the Phillippines are Ophir. Go watch it it hasn't been disproven yet in 2 years. I also know you can't say "proud" while being a real christian. Logawinner (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Logawinner: Please cite professionally-published mainstream academic sources on the matter instead of garnering views for someone's Youtube channel. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a mythical region. There is no linked sources and evidences regarding to this subject. Try again. ElCayid (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Cargo was from Tharshish, not Ophir

The intro of this piece states incorrectly that the three-yearly cargo of "gold, silver, ivory" etc was from Ophir. This is incorrect; the Biblical reference is that this cargo came from Tharshish, a different place entirely, generally accepted to be somewhere in the western Mediterranean (probably Spain or, less possibly, Carthage). See George Rawlinson "History of the Phoenician People", ref 1496. However, the reference in the body of the article to the cargo from Ophir (almug-trees etc) is correct. 2A00:23C5:8A9B:400:E53C:CD88:7EE2:86F (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)