The Tel Dan inscription was found in three fragments on Tel Dan in northern Israel in 1993 and 1994. It is one of the most controversial textual archaeological finds since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most scholars agree that the text, which is written in Old Aramaic, is to be dated to the late ninth century BCE. It refers to a war between the Aramaeans and the northern kingdom of Israel. The text is apparently represented as authored by King Hazael of Damascus, and many scholars have discerned the names of the kings Jehoram and Ahaziah of Israel and Judah in the fragmented text. There has been an extremely lively, and even heated, debate over both its language and its content, and it is time that a full survey of the debate should be undertaken. In his previous book, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Critical Investigation of Recent Research on its Palaeography and Philology (2006)--now distributed by Sheffield Phoenix Press--Hallvard Hagelia has examined those more technical aspects of the debate. In the present corollary volume, The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research, Hagelia analyses the debate on all the other more general aspects of the inscription. His own view is to support the joining of the fragments as it is done by the editors, Biran and Naveh, and to translate the controversial term bytdwd as 'House of David'. The debate on the Tel Dan is interesting and significant in itself, but it can also be viewed as a case study of the wider debate between the so-called 'minimalists' and 'maximalists' in Hebrew Bible scholarship. In particular Hagelia's two books offer an notable exchange of views with George Athas's The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (2003).

>

A clear and thorough exposition of the practice and theory of Buddhist logix and epistemology.

Learn how to make data-driven research accessible to decision makers, policymakers, and the general public Many researchers, scholars, and analysts fail to develop communication strategies that work in today’s crowded landscape of content, research, and data. To be successful, modern researchersneed to share their insights with the wider audience that lies beyond academia. Elevate the Debate helps researchers of all types more effectively communicate their work in any number of areas, from traditional news outlets to the new media platforms of the digital age. After reading this book, you will be inspired and equipped to use traditional and digital media environments to your advantage. This real-world guide helps you present your data-driven research with greater clarity, coherence, and impact. An array of practical strategies and proven techniques enables you to make your research accessible to diverse audiences, form engaging narratives, and design and implement meaningful outreach plans. Each chapter examines a specific communications strategy, such as data visualization, presentation skills, social media, blog writing, and reporter interactions. Written by expert members of the Urban Institute’s Communication department, and edited by Jonathan Schwabish, a Senior Fellow at Urban, Elevate the Debate guides you on how to use the media environment to your advantage and make a difference through policy insights and policy solutions. This valuable book teaches you how to: Develop and apply data-driven and story-focused communication Use the “Pyramid Philosophy” of rooting accessible, engaging communications products in sophisticated research. Solve problems with your research by defining goals and recommending conclusions-based actions Identify the researchers, organizations, funders, influencers, and policymakers who are most important to your goals and precisely target their information needs Employ communication styles and strategies to get your work in the hands of people who can use it and act upon it. Elevate the Debate: A Multi-layered Approach to Communicating Your Research is a must-have resource for academic researches, policy researchers, and all analysts of data-driven research.

Though the scientific community largely agrees that climate change is underway, debates about this issue remain fiercely polarized. These conversations have become a rhetorical contest, one where opposing sides try to achieve victory through playing on fear, distrust, and intolerance. At its heart, this split no longer concerns carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases, or climate modeling; rather, it is the product of contrasting, deeply entrenched worldviews. This brief examines what causes people to reject or accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Synthesizing evidence from sociology, psychology, and political science, Andrew J. Hoffman lays bare the opposing cultural lenses through which science is interpreted. He then extracts lessons from major cultural shifts in the past to engender a better understanding of the problem and motivate the public to take action. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate makes a powerful case for a more scientifically literate public, a more socially engaged scientific community, and a more thoughtful mode of public discourse.

What words come to mind when we think of God? Merciful? Just? Compassionate? Delving deep into the Bible, former evangelical preacher Dan Barker uncovers God's negative qualities: jealous, petty, unforgiving, bloodthirsty, vindictive--and worse! Witty and well researched, this unique atheist book explains exactly why the Scripture shouldn't govern our everyday lives. It makes a powerful argument for the separation of church and state.

Is evil evidence against the existence of God? A collection of essays by philosophers, theologians, and other scholars. Even if God and evil are compatible, it remains hotly contested whether evil renders belief in God unreasonable. The Evidential Argument from Evil presents five classic statements on this issue by eminent philosophers and theologians, and places them in dialogue with eleven original essays reflecting new thinking by these and other scholars. The volume focuses on two versions of the argument. The first affirms that there is no reason for God to permit either certain specific horrors or the variety and profusion of undeserved suffering. The second asserts that pleasure and pain, given their biological role, are better explained by hypotheses other than theism. Contributors include William P. Alston, Paul Draper, Richard M. Gale, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Alvin Plantinga, William L. Rowe, Bruce Russell, Eleonore Stump, Richard G. Swinburne, Peter van Inwagen, and Stephen John Wykstra.