thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

AlanF

thirdwitless wrote:
: 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.
Actually not.
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):
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/Addad_Guppi.pdf
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.
AlanF
AlanF

thirdwitless, let me remind you that I've posted a new thread ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118096/1.ashx ) that uses the fact that the Society interprets Genesis non-literally to prove that it is not required to interpret all Scripture literally to be a faithful Christian, and thus, that faithful Christians can view unfulfilled prophecies such as Ezekiel's prediction of 40 years of desolation for Egypt as non-literal. This clobbers your arguments about this 40-year desolation re: the 607 date.
Unless you respond substantively, all of the JW lurkers reading these threads will continue to laugh at you.
AlanF
thirdwitness

AlanF said a lot of words but didn't really say anything that I see that disprove what I wrote. You admit: 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". Can you explain why it is different? Especially since both copies are supposedly from the tomb of Adad-Guppi. The truth is we know very little about this writing and have to use a great deal of speculation. What is also apparent is that you are one who puts interpreted secular chronology above the Bible's words. You have admitted it time and time again. I hope that lurkers are taking note that when they listen and believe you they are putting faith in the words of one who holds the Bible in lesser esteem than the exaggerated stories about Marduk and Sin, the great and powerful gods of the pagan astrologers.
thirdwitness

AlanF said: 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,
I do agree with you here. The first copy does not actually have the year '95' in it. Interpreters have added the number to the copy. 95 only appears in the second copy. But this is not involved in my argument at all. Except that it proves that the first copy if it is like the 2nd copy having the number 95 has misadded the years. So this proves further that somebody changed something.
thirdwitness

So what I actually should have said was:
The first copy says: "during all these 95 (number derived from 2nd copy) 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."
thirdwitness

AlanF said: 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.

Maybe you missed my dot dot dot. This is put in their to indicate that the rest of the quote is further down the line. Notice the dot dot dot in my quote.

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."

But even if I had forgotten to put the dot dot dot are the lesson's in grammar really necessary? Do they help you to somehow prove that I am wrong? Your attempt at discrediting what I say with these insignificant digs is not going unnoticed by the JW lurkers. If you have something that disproves what I say please by all means present it.
AlanF

In his post 152, thirdwitless wrote a lot of gibberish concerning "The Hillah Stele", which I will attempt to wade through and comment upon.
I have to hand it to you, thirdwitless. Your ability to disgorge complete bullshit is rapidly approaching that of your brother, scholar pretendus stupidus maximus.
: As I pointed out earlier by changing the number from 74 to 54 the writer or copyist could have easily caused readers to get the understanding that he was promoting.
This is wild speculation that has nothing to do with reality.
: However, as I said, I will treat the Hillah Stele as if it were part of the inspired record of the Bible (although we definitely know that it is not nor is it inspired) to show that it still does not disprove 607.
One does not have to treat any ancient documents as if they were inspired. One only has to treat them with a reasonable amount of caution, and attempt to incorporate them into a consistent whole of ancient history.
: First we must show what BM 21901 states:
: that in the "sixteenth year" of Nabopolassar, in the month Marheshwan, "the Umman-manda" (Medes) "who had come to help the king of Akkad, put their armies together and marched to Harran against Ashuruballit II who had ascended the throne in Assyria...the king of Akkad reached Harran and he captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple."
Good job, thirdwitless! You managed to paraphrase something properly!
For readers, the text of BM 21901 can be found in A. K. Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 2000, "Chronicle 3", "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle", pp. 90-96). In particular, the above material that thirdwitless paraphrased can be found on page 95.
The events described on page 95 took place in 609 B.C., and actually describe the final end of the Assyrian empire.
: You surely must take note that it does not say that the temple
Of course, BM 21901 is obviously talking about the Assyrian temple of Ehulhul in Harran, since "the king of Akkad" is said to have "reached Harran" and "captured the city", whence he "carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple."
: was destroyed or ruined in the 16th year of Nabopolassar but merely that it was looted. Booty was taken from it and the city. The reader must assume that the writer of this chronicle is saying the temple was destroyed. The chronicle does not really say that.
True, but in the language of the Babylonian records, a statement like "vast booty was taken" generally implies that a lot of destruction took place along with the generalized looting.
: We have a Bible example of this.
I take it you mean an example of a city being looted but not destroyed.
: Daniel 1:2 In time Jehovah gave into his hand Je·hoi´a·kim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the [true] God, so that he brought them to the land of Shi´nar to the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to the treasure-house of his god.
: Now we know for a fact that the temple in Jerusalem was not destroyed at this time because we have further Biblical evidence that the temple was destroyed over 10 years later. The reader might make the assumption that the temple was destroyed at this time but he would be wrong. So likewise assuming that the BM chronicle above is talking about the temple being destroyed might just be a wrong assumption. It only says that booty was taken from the temple.
So what you're saying is that the mention by BM 21901 of booty being taken in Nabopolassar's 16th year from Harran and the Ehulhul temple does not necessarily mean that Harran and the temple were completely destroyed.
Although what you post from here on is mostly gibberish, I can see where you're going with this. What you want to establish is that the temple of Ehulhul in Harran was not necessarily destroyed in 609 B.C. in the 16th year of Nabopolassar when the Babylonian armies took Harran and put an end to the Assyrian empire.
: Now we can proceed to the Hillah Stele. The Hillah Stele tells us: "In the beginning of my everlasting reign they caused me to see a dream...they were standing together... Marduk spoke to me: 'Nabonidus, king of Babylon, carry bricks on your horse, build the Ehulhul and establish the dwelling of Sin, the great lord, in its midst."
I will assume for the time being that your quotation is accurate, since as of this writing I do not have a translation of the complete Hillah stele and must rely on other sources for the relevant texts.
: We will assume that Nabonidus means in his very first year of rule although he merely says in the beginning of his rule. The Stele tells us: "Marduk the great Lord, and Sin, the Light of Heaven and Earth, stood one on each side of me, and the god Marduk spake unto me, saying: 'O Nabonidus, thou king of Babylon, with the horses of they chariot bring thou bricks, and build the shrine of Ehulhul, and make thou Sin, the great Lord, to dwell in his habitation.'"
: And concerning this temple it says: "which had been lying in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries, with the consent of the gods the time for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when Sin should return to his place."
At this point I need to interrupt your gibberish and insert the following information:
First, the text you quoted clearly states that the temple of Ehulhul was in a state of "devastation by the Medes (who) destroyed the sanctuaries". So everything you've attempted to insinuate above by your stupid references to BM 21901 is completely irrelevant. Indeed, this text that you've quoted completely resolves any ambiguity with respect to how completely the Ehulhul temple was ruined according to BM 21901. Obviously, that temple was ruined sufficiently that worshipers did not worship there for 54 years.
Second, the Addad-guppi stele clearly states that the city of Harran was ruined. You can easily see this for yourself by looking at the pdf scan of the text of this stele published in 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). As I said in my previous post, I've scanned in a pdf file of this from the fifth printing of 1992 of ANET, which you can find here:
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/Addad_Guppi.pdf
The relevant statements in the stele are in the first paragraph in the main text. The text has the Queen Addad-guppi saying:
. . . I who -- (even) in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, when Sin, the king of all gods, became angry with his city (i.e., Harran) and his temple, and went up to heaven and the city and the people in it became desolate . . .
So according to this stele, in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, Harran and its people "became desolate". Sounds pretty cut and dried to me.
So according to these ancient, contemporary sources, in the 16th year of Nabopolassar the city of Harran and its people were desolated, and the temple Ehulhul ruined.
From here you jump to a completely different track, having utterly failed to establish anything at all, other than that you can advance silly and incomplete arguments.
: If we count 54 years back using the chronology really established in the Bible
Oh Ho! Here comes a transparently stupid bit of circular reasoning. Are you really so stupid as to think that this isn't circular reasoning, and that most readers won't catch it?
I will point out that your argument hinges on your acceptance of the fact that Nabonidus' accession year was 556 B.C., and his 1st year was 555 B.C., so that counting back 54 years gets us to Nabopolassar's 16th year in 609 B.C. according to standard Neo-Babylonian dating.
: it brings us back to about the 16th year of Neb's rule.
Actually it gets us back to 609 B.C., which was Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year.
: Was this when the temple of Ehulhul in Harran was actually destroyed?
Yes, according to the two ancient sources shown above.
: Well I personally cannot say
You cannot personally admit to many facts. But that is neither here nor there.
: but if this was an inspired inscription that would be the only conclusion that could be reached.
So your conclusion is based on the circular reasoning that Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year was in 609, which in turn is based the claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C., which is in turn based on the claim that secular history is wrong by some 20 years, which is in turn based on the claim that Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year was in 609 rather than in 589 as all historians agree. So you've come full circle, in the usual path of JW defenders.
Are you really so stupid as to not understand this? Or is it that you really do understand, but for very understandable emotional reasons are unable to let go of this ridiculous Watchtower chronology?
Given that you've established a basis for this circular reasoning, you proceed to complete the circle:
: So the destruction of the temple in Harran apparently took place during Neb's rule about 20 years after Nabopolasser plundered or looted it if you believe the Hillah Stele.
But when one accepts the true Bible-based chronology along with solid secular chronology, we see that the Ehulhul temple was destroyed in Nabopolassar's 16th year in 609 B.C., thus fully establishing the coherence of these ancient sources.
: And that is why it does not absolutely disprove 607 even if it were true.
Because your conclusion is based on a lot of gibberish along with demonstrably wrong assumptions and reasoning, readers can see that it's wrong.
Try again, thirdwitless.
AlanF
Leolaia

AlanF....I just remembered that the recent Context of Scripture (by Hallo et al, ed.) series, which is intended as an update of Pritchard's ANET, has the text of the Adda Guppi Stele and it may well have the Hillah Stele as well. It's an expensive series (Vol. 1 devoted to canonical literature, Vol. 2 to monumental inscriptions, and Vol. 3 to letters and other texts), but very useful.
AlanF

thirdwitless wrote:
: AlanF said a lot of words
Most of which you're obviously too morally stupid to admit understanding.
: but didn't really say anything that I see that disprove what I wrote.
Of course! But that merely illustrates the gross braindeadness of cult-damaged people like Jehovah's Witnesses.
: You admit: 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".
What do you mean by "you admit"? I carefully explained that it was irrelevant what the translation of the earlier H1 A stele contained, because the later and undamaged H1 B stele fully resolved all questions.

: Can you explain why it is different?
I already did, you moron. Read my post again.

: Especially since both copies are supposedly from the tomb of Adad-Guppi.
I dealt with this, too, you moron.

: The truth is we know very little about this writing and have to use a great deal of speculation.
LOL! The usual backed-into-the-corner bullshit excuse we've all come to expect from JW defenders.

: What is also apparent is that you are one who puts interpreted secular chronology above the Bible's words.
What is clearly apparent is that you Jehovah's Witnesses in the rank and file, under the leadership of the Watchtower Society, put your sectarian interpretations above the Bible's words and solidly established fact. Just like you put your sectarian interpretations of Genesis above God's clearly stated words in Exodus that "in six days the heavens and the earth were created".
: You have admitted it time and time again.
What I have clearly stated -- and you've introduced something entirely irrelevant to this thread, but I will comment anyway -- is that whenever solid secular information trumps a literal interpretation of the Bible -- particularly by biased sectarians such as Jehovah's Witnesses -- the secular information wins. The Watchtower Society clearly adheres to this principle in the case of Genesis, which, in combination with Exodus, clearly states that the entire universe was created in six literal days. The Society, on the other hand, accepts the solid findings of science and therefore rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis and Exodus, thereby accepting the secular chronology of geologists. So it is clear that, when science dictates it, Jehovah's Witnesses also put "secular chronology above the Bible's words."
: I hope that lurkers are taking note that when they listen and believe you they are putting faith in the words of one who holds the Bible in lesser esteem than the exaggerated stories about Marduk and Sin, the great and powerful gods of the pagan astrologers.
LOL! I have no doubt at all that JW lurkers will see through your 'arguments' and understand them for the complete nonsense they are.
In your next post, thirdwitless, you descend further into gibberish:
:: 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,
: I do agree with you here.
You'd better, you moron, because I've quoted the original texts exactly.
: The first copy does not actually have the year '95' in it. Interpreters have added the number to the copy. 95 only appears in the second copy.
And?
: But this is not involved in my argument at all.
Of course it is, you moron. Your statement proves that you truly don't understand this material.
The figure "95" is crucial to figuring out how many years elapsed between Addad-guppi's birth and death. In conjunction with the statements that the Queen lived until Nabonidus' 9th year, it shows that the Queen lived for 104 years according to a simple-minded adding up of the years, but about 101 or 102 years according to a careful reading of the text.
I'll leave it at that, given your demonstrated difficulty in understanding much simpler things.
: Except that it proves that the first copy if it is like the 2nd copy having the number 95 has misadded the years.
Nonsense. The text is clear, as anyone can see by reading the pdf link to ANET 1969 that I've given. From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal to his 42nd year is 22 years. Then we have 3 years for Ashur-etil-ili, 21 years for Nabopolassar, 43 years for Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years for Awel-Merodach, and 4 years for Neriglissar. The rest is simple arithmetic: 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95. I suggest that you consult a reputable mathematician to confirm this.
: So this proves further that somebody changed something.
Actually it proves that somebody is a total moron.
In your next post, thirdwitless, you manage to outdo yourself, as if such a thing were possible.
: So what I actually should have said was:
: The first copy says: "during all these 95 (number derived from 2nd copy) 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 still have it wrong. Read my post again, along with that 1969 WT article.
In your next post, thirdwitless, you manage to continue making a fool of yourself.
: AlanF said: 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.
: Maybe you missed my dot dot dot.
Not at all. But since you insist -- in your typically braindead fashion -- on splitting hairs, let's go for it.
You wrote:
: 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."
For one thing, you buggered the quotation marks. You have three, when you should have had four. This is extremely confusing to non-JWs.
For another, you failed to indicate how much text there was between the "..." and the buggered "from the time of Ashurbanipal . . .". This is scholastically dishonest.
: This is put in their to indicate that the rest of the quote is further down the line. Notice the dot dot dot in my quote.
Yes, and notice the above flaws in your writing. A competent writer would indicate a good deal of space between pieces of a quotation this way:
Blah blah blah . . .
Bloo bloo bloo . . .
: But even if I had forgotten to put the dot dot dot are the lesson's in grammar really necessary?
Yes. Because your sloppiness in something as simple as simple grammar points to your sloppiness in much more important matters. Do you not believe the Bible's words? "He who is unfaithful in what is least will be unfaithful in much"? You demonstrate the truthfulness of this Scripture every time you post.
: Do they help you to somehow prove that I am wrong?
They prove that you're a sloppy writer, and a sloppy thinker.
: Your attempt at discrediting what I say with these insignificant digs is not going unnoticed by the JW lurkers.
You got that right! And they're going to notice your sloppiness in reasoning most of all.
: If you have something that disproves what I say please by all means present it.
What a friggin' idiot! I've done that in spades.
AlanF
AuldSoul

thirdwitness,
Because you are bereft of anything nearing intellectual integrity, I cannot continue any discussion with you. You LIKE your hibernated mind, so there can be no changing it. All the best to those who will battle on against you. The question at hand is not either 587 BC or 607 BC, although you consistently attempt to make it seem so.
Even if the three year difference you mentioned had ANY significance to the 16th year of Nabopolassar or the reign of Nabonidus, it would still only shift the current chronology three years, meaning it would be a question of 560 BC - 584 BC, and 607 BC would still be incorrect. The WTS tries to shift the current chronology 20 years, and they have no evidenciary basis for doing so. Not even Scripural basis.
Fortunately for secular chronology, Adda-Guppi's life span has nothing whatsoever to do with establishing NB chronology, so addressing it as something of significance for that purpose is deceptive in the extreme. As you note, the second Adda-Guppi Stele contains the years of reign that the first was missing (due to crumbling). And it was THESE years which appeared in brackets in the quote from the WTS. Why did they go on public record in recommending ignoring what they knew to be evidenciarily supported years of reign?
Because they, like you, have something to prove. Unlike secular historians, they have doctrines dependent on the outcome of historical research. Their doctrines must be preserved even if intellectual dishonesty is required in order to preserve them. Historians would have no trouble adjusting their chronology should new evidence come to light. However, JWs cannot adjust their NB chronology without losing their claim to divinely granted authority. And they know their treatment of ANE evidence is prejudiced by their desire to preserve the illusion that their self-appointed authority is actually from God.
From my observation, I have decided that your chosen moniker actually means something quite different than what you intended. thirdwitness = "thus he is rash, deceiving, wanting, intellectually torpid, narcissistic, egocentric, sophistic, soporific."
You have no light. You only seem to have light, but only to those who are similarly walking in darkness and calling it light.
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 Now what I am doing I will still do, that I may cut off the pretext from those who are wanting a pretext for being found equal to us in the office of which they boast. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness. But their end shall be according to their works.
Job 12:25
They grope in darkness, where there is no light, That he may make them wander about like a drunken man.
Job 17:12Night they keep putting for day: ‘Light is near on account of darkness.’
Isaiah 5:20Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 59:9-15
That is why justice has come to be far away from us, and righteousness does not catch up with us. We keep hoping for light, but, look! darkness; for brightness, [but] in continuous gloom we kept walking. We keep groping for the wall just like blind men, and like those without eyes we keep groping. We have stumbled at high noon just as in evening darkness; among the stout ones [we are] just like dead people. We keep groaning, all of us, just like bears; and like doves we mournfully keep cooing. We kept hoping for justice, but there was none; for salvation, [but] it has stayed far away from us. For our revolts have become many in front of you; and as for our sins, each one has testified against us. For our revolts are with us; and as for our errors, we well know them. There have been transgressing and a denying of Jehovah; and there was a moving back from our God, a speaking of oppression and revolt, a conceiving and a muttering of words of falsehood from the very heart. And justice was forced to move back, and righteousness itself kept standing simply far off. For truth has stumbled even in the public square, and what is straightforward is unable to enter. And the truth proves to be missing, and anyone turning away from badness is being despoiled.
Matthew 6:22-23
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is simple, your whole body will be bright; but if your eye is wicked, your whole body will be dark. If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is!
Luke 11:33-36After lighting a lamp, a person puts it, not in a vault nor under a measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, that those stepping in may behold the light. The lamp of the body is your eye. When your eye is simple, your whole body is also bright; but when it is wicked, your body is also dark. Be alert, therefore. Perhaps the light that is in you is darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is bright with no part at all dark, it will all be as bright as when a lamp gives you light by its rays.”
John 3:19-21
Now this is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved. But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God.”
John 8:12Therefore Jesus spoke again to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.”
Acts 26:15-18And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Nevertheless, rise and stand on your feet. For to this end I have made myself visible to you, in order to choose you as an attendant and a witness both of things you have seen and things I shall make you see respecting me; while I deliver you from [this] people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, in order for them to receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by [their] faith in me.’
Romans 2:19
and you are persuaded that you are a guide of the blind, a light for those in darkness,
1 John 1:5-7
And this is the message which we have heard from him and are announcing to YOU, that God is light and there is no darkness at all in union with him. If we make the statement: “We are having a sharing with him,” and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth. However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
AuldSoul

thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele

Share this