If you read Jonsson's discussion of this inscription then you will have all the relevant information for all i can do is simply repeat his discussion of the matter along with my critique.
I take it, then, that Jonsson's discussion of the Hillah Stele (a contemporary stele) is the only source you have of the Stele? Odd. I thought you knew this subject inside and out. Is that not the case?
Is Jonsson the only historian that discusses this stele? In short, do you or do you not know the significance of this specific stele to Ancient Near East chronology independent of your attempt to critique one historian's viewpoint? Your critique appears to be using the "methodology," from what I gather of your posts, the unaccepted theories of a Jehovah's Witness linguist who is a professor at the University of Oslo—not those of any historian.
You had a preconception that the Society was correct and you have set a course to prove them right. You are not alone. If you have nothing to offer beyond the discussion as it centers around JW beliefs, i.e. if you have nothing that remotely approaches scholarship, on what basis do you state they are correct? I am giving you an opportunity to prove it. Let's take a different tack, shall we?
You have repeatedly noted that WT writers agree with historians that Babylon was overthrown in 539 BC. You have never stated WHY they agree with that date. Oddly enough, neither have they. Perhaps, since they have not been forthcoming with their reason for agreement you will be so kind as to share your reason.
Why do YOU agree with secular historians that 539 BC was the year the Babylonian empire fell? I'm afraid since the question is a personal one, only you can answer it. I am admittedly only guessing, but I bet you don't know why you agree with that date. I am interested to see what answer you come up with.