Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Yet another possible error or forgery all in the name of trying to prove the existence of the nonexistent ancient Israel.
Here is the official information:
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III was discovered by the late Henry Layard in 1845.
The 7 foot black limestone monument was found in the ruins of the palace of Shalmaneser III at ancient Calah, near Nineveh. It contains many panels displaying the Assyrian kings exploits. The Black Obelisk is one of the most important discoveries in Biblical Archeology because one of the panels depicts the Hebrew king Jehu, or possibly one of his servants, bringing gifts to Shalmaneser and kneeling at his feet. The inscription above it reads:
Material - Black Limestone Obelisk
Date: 858-824 BC
Height: 197.85 cm (77.8937008 inches)
Width: 45.08 cm (17.7480315 inches)
Nimrud (ancient Calah), northern Iraq
Excavated by: Henry Layard 1845-1849
Location: British Museum, London
Now here is an explanation to the mis-translation or error in this Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III translation:
First of all, "Israel" is never mentioned on the obelisk. "Jehu" is actually Laua which would be pronounced Jaua. It wouldn't be a stretch to translate this to Jesus. Laua (Jaua) mar Huumrii (Khumri) means "of Huumrii/Khumri" in the context of a city or state, not a house or a father.
This scene is one of the five reliefs on the obelisk. The other four are more accurately translated since they all mention cities or states instead of ' like the "Jehu" relief. This was mistranslated due to biblical confirmation bias. The other thing it fails to mention is the whole tribute thing. All five of these cities/states are allies, including "Jehu". The only exception is Hattina (probably the Hittite kingdom of Haiti) where the actual obelisk mentions a rebellion and the king being slain, so he conquers it. None of the other kingdoms in the reliefs are mentioned in the obelisk because again, they were allies. There is no such alliance in the bible and it would be a bit contradictory.
The Kurkh Monolith, which repeats some of these same things, is definitely mistranslated. A place or origin (city/state) similar to the above Huumrii/Khumri is mistranslated as Israel. Vandalized is the more proper word. There is no other proper translation. Ahab the Israelite it says. Now Ahab is an Israel king's name but the dates are on the monolith, the monolith's scribe is considered inaccurate, and it contradicts the Obelisk's account. This event is also not biblical.
Whatever similarities in names appear to exist can easily be explained: The author of the Book of Kings used the monolith and the obelisk as a basis. Seriously, and he couldn't read that language well at all and thought that Khumri was Omri and Omri was a person and not a place.
At some point, people will hopefully realize there is very little, if anything, biblical in Palestine and that the history in the bible is recollection of events that happened somewhere else, if they happened at all. This Hyskos thing doesn't match the bible at all unless you ignore a lot of other facts. That's a dead end from a biblical historian using confirmation bias. The Egyptian chronology is also really messed up and inaccurate. Hyskos were probably Amorites (backwards corruption of Romans, Amor=Roma, corrupted from right-to-left and left-to-right mistranslation, likely the same with Assur and Russa). And there is a good chance there was a relationship with the Egyptian kings and the British Isles. Either with the local Egyptian Kings or the foreign Hyskos.