(April 3, 2013 at 12:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:If that is your position then you cannot claim the Taylor prism is in any way related to it. The prism clearly refers to another Jerusalem. It refers to a Jerusalem which matches that on the prism.
The Taylor Prism dates from the early 7th century. There is a minimum of two centuries between the observations of "Jerusalem" of, let's use George Athas' toponym, Bytdwd, on the Tel Dan stele.
Every example of the use of the word BYT means place to live from house to temple to town to region. Every example EXCEPT when it comes to David and means dynasty. And that is because during Renaissance some people in Italy started using house to mean dynasty. Perhaps DaVinci also invented a time machine to transport the dynasty meaning back to mythical times.
You are correct though in giving BYTDWD as one word from the inscription as opposed to all other uses such as BYT YHWH being two words for house of the lord. But it does not address the fact that the alignment of the pieces is indeterminent and even the arbitrary alignment chosen has so many missing words any and every translation is arbitrary.
http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/david.phtml and http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-histo...rans.phtml
Note on the latter the believing translators add whole words on the left. Note in line 7 the translators have added the names of both "kings" which come from no other source than the bible. Note also the believers have not invented Omri for the inscription choosing to use the bible instead of the prism for names to insert without justification. But they have invented "killed" for some reason, biblical reasons one presumes.
You might also notice there is no left border to the inscription so how many words missing on the left is arbitrary, i.e. believers' choice, as to how many words and letters need be invented to CREATE a coherent, biblical translation.
Quote:I'm curious why you think that nothing could have changed when archaeology clearly shows a rapid burst in the Judahite population as a result of the Assyrian campaign against "Israel" ( or the House of Umri) and Philistia?
I am unaware of any rapid increase which would only mean population density.
Quote:And I am going to have to start replying to you in virtual sound bites because otherwise you divide posts up into multi-quotes which, frankly, annoys the living fuck out of me. So, one at a time.
I try to address each point separately. It is a common method creating a separate point of discussion and improves the ability to edit replies to replies, shortening what needs be quoted so the chain of thought is not lost. My experience has been without this ability to delete what is not a point of disagreement leads to hugely long replies often for a simple disagreement of a statement in one sentence. I use ... to mark deletions. Without marking deletions that is what you did here. Fine with me. This is common on usenet and was used on the old BBS system. It never occurred to me it would annoy someone.
