: First I will cover the Adad Guppi Stele. Aside from the fact that it is an unbelievable story about how the false gods blessed Adad Guppi with long life and destined her son to be king,
Really. As far-fetched, perhaps, as the ancient story that all the world's troubles are because a talking snake lied to a naked lady and she believed him?
: there are other reasons to discredit it. It is easily discredited as the WT has shown.
It's painfully obvious from your silly "defense" that you have not done your homework. You have not bothered to look up actual source references, but have relied on the dubious claims of The Watchtower and, likely, some of your JW-defender buddies. This will become evident as we progress.
: Two copies have been found. One missing most of the years of the King's rules (the one the WT quotes). The 2nd copy contains their years.
Well, you managed to get something right.
The earlier stele is designated H1 A and was first published by H. Pognon after he discovered it in temple ruins in Eski Harran in Turkey in 1906. An English translation of it can be found in the 1950 edition of Pritchard's ANET (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, 1950, pp. 311-2). I do not have access to a copy of this reference, but will obtain one.
The later and much better preserved stele is designated H1 B and was first published by C. J. Gadd in 1958 after its 1956 discovery by Dr. D. S. Rice. It was found in close proximity to H1 A, along with two other identical stelae. H1 A and H1 B appear to be tomb inscriptions of the mother of Nabonidus. An English translation of it can be found in the 1969 edition of Pritchard's ANET (Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, Third Edition with Supplement, Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 560-2). I've scanned in a pdf file of this from the fifth printing of 1992 of ANET, which you can find here (this should be good enough for OCR'ing if anyone is of a mind to do it):
An English translation identical to that in ANET can be found in the much more widely available paperback book by James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Volume II (Princeton University Press, 1975, pp. 104-8).
: The first copy says: "during all these 95 years in which I visited the temple of the great godhead Sin..."from the time of Ashurbanipal to the 6th year of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son of my womb, for 104 happy years."
You've really buggered this, thirdwitless. You've managed to conflate the texts of H1 A and H1 B.
The first part of what you quote is not from the first copy, H1 A, but is from the second copy, H1 B. According to the Society's writing in the 1-Feb-1969 Watchtower (p. 89), the text of H1 A is greatly damaged and the translation actually reads:
[in summa 95 yea]rs, [the god was away] till Sin,
Everything in brackets is interpolated by the translators. This is said to be quoted from Pritchard's ANET of 1950, pp. 311-2.
But according to Pritchard's ANET of 1969, which contains the translated text of H1 B, the text reads:
during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple of the great godhead of Sin,
The second part of what you quoted is quite a bit further along in the text than your buggered quotation indicates. If you check the pdf of ANET that I linked to above, you'll find that the first part of your quotation comes from the first paragraph at the top of the first column of page 561, whereas the second part of your quotation comes from material in H1 A (quoted by the WTS in ANET 1950) equivalent to the material in the first paragraph in the second column on page 561. Indeed, the 1969 Watchtower says this:
Farther along in the text Nabonidus’ mother (or grandmother) is represented as crediting Sin with granting her long life "from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 6th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son of my womb, (that is) for 104 happy years, . . . " -- Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 311, 312.
The later copy of the stele, H1 B, according to the 1969 version of ANET, reads:
He added (to my life) many days (and) years of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years . . .
In view of your buggering such a simple quotation by conflating material you've culled from separate sources that you really don't understand, it's painfully obvious that you're not doing your homework by doing research for yourself.
: As the WT points out if we add all the years together we arrive at 101 years not 104 years as stated. Three years are unaccounted for.
True enough, but what the Society fails to tell you (and obviously you haven't done enough homework to have seen this) is that a litter further along, the text of the 1969 ANET has:
(Postscript:) She died a natural death in the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon.
You can find this at the bottom of the 2nd column on page 561 in the above pdf.
Whether the 1950 ANET translation contains this information, I do not know, but I will find out soon enough. But that is neither here nor there, because whatever the 1950 ANET translation reads as far as the "6th year of Nabonidus", the 1969 ANET translation reads "9th year" both in the location in question and in the later location shown above. Therefore, the correct figure must be "9th year".
This information invalidates your next arguments:
: Enter copy number 2. Notice what it says: ..."from the time of Ashurbanipal to the 9th year of Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, the son of my womb, for 104 happy years."
Having buggered your previous quotation, one wonders where you got this quotation from. Whatever, it's correct.
Having begun from erroneous information, you proceed to make erroneous assumptions:
: By simply changing the 6th to the 9th, presto, the mistake is gone.
Just where do you think this "change" has been made? In the original stele? Or perhaps in the English translation quoted by the Society? Most likely it's the latter, because the text of the first stele, H1 A, is heavily damaged, and its translators might have misread a damaged cuneiform symbol, so that "9" became "6". This could happen easily enough with a damaged cuneiform text, because the symbol for "6" contains six vertical triangle marks arranged in two rows, whereas the symbol for "9" contains nine vertical triangle marks arranged in three rows. If the top or bottom of the symbol is heavily damaged, it might not be seen by the translator. See this link for more information: http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/Numbers.html
But of course, an incorrect translation of a damaged stele, in view of the clear text of the later stele, H1 B, is irrelevant. Furthermore, the fact that H1 A and H1 B, along with another identical set of stelae, were all related to the death of Nabonidus' mother and all found in the same location in or near a temple in Harran (see the introductory paragraph in the above pdf, page 560 of ANET 1969), shows that the two stele must have been identical. It is inconceivable that twin stele commissioned by the King of Babylon to commemorate his mother the Queen would have contained such a glaring error.
: Clearly, the writings have been changed from one copy to the next.
Your powers of deduction need, well, adjusting.
Having made an unjustified and erroneous conclusion based on erroneous data, you proceed to speculate wildly:
: What other changes were made? Were other numbers that are missing on the first copy changed in the 2nd copy to make it all fit togther? It is very likely that the numbers provided were put in there sometime after Adad-Guppi lived and just reflected what was believed to be accurate at the time it was written or copied.
Some of the above, of course, is nothing more than a standard Watchtower-style attempt to dismiss solid evidence when the dismisser has nothing of value to say.
: We really don't know who wrote it or who copied it.
These stele were not copied. They are contemporary tomb inscriptions for the mother of Nabonidus.
: How can we possibly accept this writing over the Bibles clear and inspired testimony.
These stele actually completely confirm real Bible chronology -- all the while destroying Watchtower chronology. You continue to reject the combination of solid secular and Bible chronology -- which confirm each other extremely well -- for mere Watchtower chronology, which disagrees with both the Bible and secular chronology.
: Especially since it has been shown to be altered by someone somewhere along the way.
LOL! This is among your most amusing false conclusions.
: So we can easily discount these writings.
Riiiight. I need to point out that the above discussion of the Addad-guppi stele is incomplete, and fails to deal with several minor problems. However, in The Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition of 2004), Carl Jonsson deals adequately with these.