Tel dan stele dating speed dating match statistics
Secular archaeologist William Dever has completely dismissed this as impossible. Archaeologist and expert Assyriologist Kenneth Kitchen has exposed the errors of Thompson’s claims, and the claims of Davies have been disproved by Anson Raineyd, who commented ‘Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies’.
 Dever has noted that the majority of leading epigraphers believe the inscription to be a genuine reference to the House of David. Even some of those who hold a minimalist view of the Bible and archaeology have conceded that the evidence for the authenticity of the inscription is overwhelming.
C.; it was an Aramean usage that passed into Assyrian nomenclature, and examples are common.
(vi) Again, the expression, in part of its usage, is like the British “House of Windsor”, etc.
This file contains additional information such as Exif metadata which may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it.
If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file.
Joseph Naveh and Avraham Birana did not explain the inscription in detail, perhaps because they took for granted that readers would know that a word divider between two components in such a construction is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name.
  Since the Stele was not found in its original position (it was reused as building material in another location),  Davies has suggested it is actually a forgery.
And the Thirteenth Dynasty was duly entitled “Kings who came after the [House of] King Sehetepibre” (founder of the Twelfth Dynasty).
(vii) The charge of forgery is a baseless slur against the Dan expedition, without a particle of foundation in fact.’, Kitchen, ‘On The Reliability Of The Old Testament’, pp.  Rainey (Professor Emeritus of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University and expert in Semitic), ‘In response to Philip R.
After reviewing a range of objections to the Stele’s authenticity, Niels Lemche concluded that the Stele should be accepted as genuine unless significant evidence to the contrary is found. and the roughly contemporary Mesha stela mentioned kings of Israel, some (Ahab, Omri, Jehu, and, later, Joash) by name.’, Halpern, ‘The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (296.63), November 1994.
  Similarly, Lester Grabbe has acknowledged that the general scholarly consensus regards the Stele to be a genuine reference to the House of David. Until the stela’s discovery, the formation of a state in Israel could not be dated later than the mid-ninth century B. E., because Assyrian epigraphs of the 850s and 840s B.  ‘To William Dever and many other scholars, this inscription provides clear evidence that David was indeed a historical figure and not merely a mythical leader invented by later Biblical authors to give Israel a heroic past, as the Biblical minimalists maintain.’ Shanks, ‘Queries & Comments’, Biblical Archaeology Review (22.04), 2006.