Tel dan stele dating Live sex cam iphone
“The House of David” was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B. The same situation pertains to BYTDWD (House of David) in the text from Dan.
The first component is BYT (house), here in the “construct” form meaning “house of.” The main accent is on DWD (David), the second component.
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.
 ‘I was there (Tel Dan) shortly after it was found. The woman who found it, Gila Cook, I hired at Hebrew Union College. Others are beloved of deities (for which references are legion!
), but male deities are not beloved of others, human or divine (only goddesses are beloved of their divine husbands in Egypt). (iv) On Mesha’s stela dwd(h) is not a divine epithet of YHWH or anyone else.’ ‘(v) Contrary to TLT, “House of X” does mean a dynastic founder, all over the Near East, in the first half of the first millennium B.
It is a significant find, providing evidence that the nation of Israel existed as early as the 10 century, and that it was ruled over by king David, referred to in the Bible as the second king of Israel.
  Several challenges have been made to the authenticity and translation of the Stele.
There is a word divider, a dot, between BL‘M (Balaam) and BRB‘R (son of Beor), but no word divider between BR (son [of]) and B‘R (Beor).
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.
A well-known example of such a proper name composed of two components, is BL‘M.
The present instance can serve as a useful example of why Davies and his “deconstructionists” can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies.
Regarding the recently excavated Dan inscription, Davies makes a great quibble about the absence of the word divider between the components BYT (House) and DWD (David).
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’.