One of the last sane

Kosh: Thank you.

Vorkosigan

Sorry, Vorkosigan, but no amount of wishing can make it so. It is ridiculous (yes, my opinion and obviously the opinion of the majority of scholars) to imply that it could be a forgery (not to mention rather convenient for those who are bent on trashing religion at any cost - even history, don't you think? I do.). I want truth in dealing with Christians and religion, not a bunch of spinmeisters who turn everything into nothing. The same dumb thing happens on the Christian side, like I said, with things like 7Q5! It's utter stupidity (yes, once again my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of scholars - whether you believe yourself some maverick with enough exerience to throw aside a scholarly consensus, I have no idea).

Spare me the lectures. I don't really care whether the Tel Dan fragment is a forgery or not; the history of ancient Israel is unimportant as far as Christianity is concerned. Why are you imputing motives to me I don't have?

Finally, Vorkosigan, BYT *always* means house. The phrase you refer to BYT-ELOHIM means "House of God", not "Temple of God" though it obviously refers to the Temple. Temple is *not* a good translation.

Well, let's see. If something is refers to a temple, it is probably a good idea to translate it as TEMPLE, doncha think? I speak, of course, as a translator of more than a decade's experience.

Of course, one wonders why all the scholars translate the BYT YHWH in the byt yhwh ostracon as TEMPLE OF YHWH. No doubt they are not yet as advanced as you are in their understanding of "byt." Or perhaps they understand the difference between translation and transliteration

The Hebrew word DWD can possibly mean "beloved" (as you have indicated) or even "uncle/aunt" (as you do not seem to know).

Nope, never heard that one. Never claimed to be an expert, either.

However, it seems to me that in one of those cases the phrase would have been BYTHDWD (Beth Ha Dod - House of the beloved or House of the Uncle), not BYTDWD (Beth Dawid - House of David) as it actually is.

You seem not to understand the difference between a translation and a transliteration. When transliterating, we write HOUSE OF DAVID. Thompson's question is whether that transliteration is the proper translation.

Do you understand the silliness of the arguments your scholars are putting forward Vorkosigan, or are you so scared of religion having something to be happy about, that you tow the company line at all costs??

Like I said, the history of ancient Israel is not really an issue for me. Somebody asked about David, I put up some additional information. I'm not interested in "toeing the line." I doubt very much that the scholars who are putting forth these arguments consider them silly, nor do they seem to be considered silly by other scholars. Indeed, the Garibini article I referenced above is widely cited in debates on the issue. Why don't you read it over and attack his conclusions?

A number of scholars believe the Tel Dan fragment has either been dated wrongly or is a forgery. They are not all "biased."

Though your example of Windsor may sound like a good one to you, it is anachronistic to place it on the ancient semitic people. Geneaology was extrememly important to them and they would not have based their lineage on fiction.

Arguments that assert the Jews were different than all other human beings are inherently absurd. For that matter, the ancient hebrews traced their lineage back to Noah, Adam, Moses and Abraham. All, as far as anyone can tell, are fictional, and at least Noah and Abraham appear to be local versions of Middle Eastern myths. There is no evidence that Exodus, the Founding Myth of Israel, ever occurred.

So the fact is that the semites were perfectly capable of making up fictions and ascribing their history to them. As they actually did.

Who their father or ancestor was to them was very important. The *only* thing you might be able to say was that people who were not actually of the lineage took on another person's ancestral name which King Jehu seems to have done since in the Black Obelisk (which you probably also think is a forgery), he is called of the "House of Omri" (which is very similar, by the way, to the "House of David).

Also, as if that weren't enough, the stele mentions other characters from the Bible, such as Hadad and perhaps Ahab and Ahaziah!

Did you read the Garabini piece? He identified some worrisome problems with those identifications.

Here is some better information on the inscription from a less biased source:[/b]

Oh, I see. He disgrees with your position, so he's biased.

See, Davies simply felt his whole thesis threatened by this new discovery. It would be very hard even for a person of integrity to realize that the backbone of his work had been broken. However, this is the predicament you get yourself into when you say that religious books like the Bible have no basis at all in fact.

Where did I say they had no basis in fact? We're only talking about the Tel Dan fragment and whether ...K BYTDWD means "King of the House of David." Whose sock puppet are you?...never mind, I think I know.

I thought in coming to this website that there would be more open minded atheists who wanted to explore all options like I do and not just bash Christians and religion using any possible manipulation and spin on facts.

Thanks, Bede. Why don't you just use your usual moniker? Or at least change your vocabulary -- you always use "bash" and "spin" for this tiresome complaint. There's no bashing or spinning here. I don't doubt the fragment refers to a "House of David." But unfortunately, it does not prove that David ever lived. From Abraham to Romulus and Remus to the Vedic gods, mythical ancestors were the stock-in-trade of ancient people.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Toto

Better yet, search the secular web:

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=651" target="_blank">The Bible Unearthed</a> reviewed by Richard Carrier

King Arthur

I felt you needed them.

It sure seemed above that you cared. Besides, I would think that many if not most Christians would realize that without the background and supposed prophecies of their Christ, their religion would be fruitless. See, I ain't no friggin' Bede, man!

You don't wanna know my experience, mon amis. Regardless, TEMPLE is a poor translation for "House of God".

Let's see:

1Ki 8:14 -
Hebrew - " * BYT * ...L...ELOHEI"
NRSV - "house...for...God..."
RSV - "house...for...God..."
YLT - "house...for...God..." hmm...Young's *Literal* translation
LXX - "house...for...God..." - Septuagint using a form of oikos!?
NAS - "house...for...God..."
KJV - "house...for...God..."
NIV - "temple...for...God..." - ok, well, I guess you got me on the evangelical side

1Chr 6:48 -
Hebrew - "BYT..."

I dare you to find a translation that uses "Temple" for "BYT" in this verse...nope, tabernacle is a separate word...

[quote]
<strong>Of course, one wonders why all the scholars translate the BYT YHWH in the byt yhwh ostracon as TEMPLE OF YHWH. No doubt they are not yet as advanced as you are in their understanding of "byt." Or perhaps they understand the difference between translation and transliteration</strong>[quote]

Of course I have no idea which of the "all scholars" you're talking of. They are probably trying to clarify for the layman what is meant by the phrase "House of Yahweh".

ROTFL! *I* seem not to understand the difference between a translation and a transliteration?! ROTFLAGAIN!

Slowly...

BYT DWD &lt;- transliteration
House of David &lt;- translation

Since you seem to imply that I do not know the difference between the terms, allow me to explain:

To transliterate is to find letters in your own language that approximate those in another language. For instance, a "beth" in Hebrew would roughly equate to a "B" in English, etc.

One would think that with all your experience with translation, Vorkosigan, that you'd know this. Especially since you have probably seen transliterations of the Asian language you work with or around.

With some of the stuff you said so confidently about scholars and presenting a transliteration that you didn't seem to realize was a transliteration? What exactly *are* you interested in doing? Looks like confusing issues to me.

That's debatable. Everyone's biased, but aside from that, have you noticed exactly *who* it is that state the things you say?

First, I didn't say Jews. I said semitic people. Most of those surrounding "the Jews" or, more properly, Israel, at the time were of semitic origin. Semites depended on their lineage. In this respect, they were *very* different from the more modern example of Windsor Castle, which I don't happen to know the first thing about anyway.

If they did at all, it was rare.

I suppose I put some ideas on you, but you don't seem to give much credence to anything that proves the Bible. You're a Jesus myther as well, right? Hmmm....

I'm sorry if I'm a little tough on you, Vorkosigan. I suppose you could say that I like to drill points into people when I think they need it, a little like in the military. I simply hope that other atheists can realize that they don't have to be scared of "giving ground" to people of religion. I despise the twisting of facts whether religious or atheist.

Whatever... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Vorkosigan

Thanks, King. Sorry I mistook you for Bede. You are right and I am wrong.

Vorkosigan

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Toto

I have no need to take a position on whether this is a forgery or not, but what is the difference between "House of God/YHWH" and "Temple"?

King Arthur

fubar

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Thanks. You know how to get a military-type personality to lay off whether you really agree or not, don't you? That's ok.

King Arthur

In my humble (yeah, right ) opinion, the word Temple is simply anachronistic, though most modern people would probably understand a "temple" better than a "house of God".

There is another word that gets translated "temple" - the Hebrew HYCL (heycal - see 2Ki 18:16). However, a literal translation of this word would be the dwelling place of a king, what we think of as a palace. It seems that BYT and HYCL were somewhat interchangeable when talking about the place where God dwelt. God dwelt in a "house" or a "king's dwelling place" (i.e. a palace).

In other words, it was all very anthropomorphic, which the word "temple" doesn't seem to get across.