thirdwitness: Rather than disprove the points that I have brought up...
Once again, basic education in argumentation: A question is not a point. It is interrogative. Beyond unfounded statements that:
(1) "my contention is the the temple was looted in the 16th year of Nabopolasser but not destroyed for 20 years later around the 15th year of Neb. That is when the 54 years would commence."
Your contention is based on conjecture and nothing more. A conjectured fantasy regarding history is hardly disprovable, any more than a belief in fairies can be disproven, if the person who believes the fantasy disregards any evidence contrary to his or her belief. You have repeatedly shown that there is no weight of evidence sufficient to shake your confidence in the interpretation of the Bible supplied by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
(2) "But the truth is even the Adad-Stele, which has been shown at best faulty and at worst an outright fabrication, cannot be relied upon. However even that does not say the temple was destroyed. The reader must again assume that it was destroyed in the 16th year of Nabopolasser when really the writing says that the city and people were ruined."
Merriam-Webster defines "ruin" as "to reduce to ruins: DEVASTATE" but you seem to wish another definition could be used. The fact is that the Adda-Guppi Stele and BM 21901 work in concert and agree that the event decribed in the Adda-Guppi Stele occurred at the same time as the event described in BM 21901 (namely "the sack of Harran"). This removed the possibility of the scenario you deceitfully try to assert.
(3) "By combining two different sources you attempt to deceive."
Do you wish to be held to the same standard? Once again, your unfounded assertion is patently false. By combining a variety of sources one can form a more complete picture of events. In fact, you have done this very thing repeatedly. I don't think anyone has taken issue with your quoting of many sources except where the events described clearly do not correspond to each other.
The fact is, the Adda-Guppi Stele sets the timing and extent of damage for the event described in BM 21901. BM 21901 sets the timing for the event it describes as exactly the same as the timing for the event described by Adda-Guppi. The two sources are tied together by the reference to the timing (i.e. 16th year of Nabopolassar) regarding which neither are ambiguous in the slightest. The timing of the event described by BM 21901 is independently confirmed, not by someone who had to reference a scroll, but by a person who lived through the event. The extent of damage is delivered by an eyewitness of highest caliber, a priestess to the God of the very temple that was destroyed.
Your posts are full of what you believe and are extremely soft on facts. What you believe is another way of saying your private interpretation of data. Everyone reading your posts can tell that your "private interpretation" is lockstep with Watchtower Society "interpretation." Therefore, I have three questions to ask you. They are each yes or no, and the first one I have asked before. If you are incapable of answering the simplest form of question in the English language, you can hardly be expected to master a rational response to those more complicated.
We will see if you are capable of answering the simplest form of interogatory before pressing on to more complex questions, and keep in mind, lurkers are reading:
Does everything Jehovah inspires prophets to speak come about exactly as prophesied, yes or no?
The reason for asking this one is obvious to you, which explains why you have refrained from a direct answer. If there is EVER a recorded occasion on which inspired prophecy was not fulfilled exactly as uttered, then all prophecy becomes immediately dismissable pending independent evidence of fulfillment exactly as prophesied.
If the Watchtower Society changed it doctrine regarding the destruction of Solomon's Temple, stating that it occurred in 647 BC, would you also change your arguments accordingly, yes or no?
The reason for that latter question is that the Watchtower Society originally supported 1874 as the year for the invisible return of Jesus in heaven and, according to their current chronology, that teaching would require the destruction of Solomon's Temple to have occurred in 647 BC.
If the Governing Body had gone along with the proposal to move the invisible return of Christ to 1934 AD (the second such move for this event), and correspondingly moved the date for the fall of Solomon's Temple to 587 BC, would you also change your arguments accordingly, yes or no?
The reason for asking this is to fairly and unequivocally determine whether you are actually supporting what the Bible says or the interpretation of the Bible currently held to be true by the Governing Body. I doubt you will answer all of these, and lurkers will know what you are by your silence.