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

by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thirdwitness

  First off auldsoul said: As to any "inconsistencies" inherent in the Adda-Guppi Stele, please refer to any publication wherein the WTS has discussed these. There are no inconsistencies in the Adda-Guppi Stele, so I am fascinated by your recollection of a discussion of these. Are we about to witnesses a retraction from you, thirdwitness, or will you follow the example of your leaders and obfuscate any false statements into oblivion as though they never occurred?

  Then auldsoul said: I wonder if thirdwitness will ever apologize for remembering a WTS discussion that never took place?

  Since it has been shown that there was indeed a WT publication discussing the aforementioned inscription I will throw the last question you posed right back at you.

  Then I will show you how the Adda-Guppi just has a fancy tail and Hillah Monster is just a Big Foot tale that do not prove 587.
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness,

  AuldSoul: Thanks for the search, Midget-Sasquatch! It still doesn't point out any inconsistencies, which was thirdwitness' contention.

  Blind, much?
• 

  james_woods

  I don't get you, thirdwitnesses - so what was the WT publication that discussed the hideous female bigfoot sasquatch Hilla Steele?
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness,

  The only point I am referencing from the Adda-Guppi Stele is that the temple of Sin at Harran was damaged in Nabopolassar's 16th regnal year. I will not be sidetracked into a protracted discussion about other minutiae. Your chief diversionary tactic that has worked so well for you in every other thread you enter will fail utterly with me.

  This thread topic is the Hillah Stele. The intent is not to prove 587 BC, therefore your arguments must avoid use of this overripe red herring of yours. The intent is to establish whether or not 607 BC is a possible year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple, not to establish any other year as a viable alternate.

  You are welcome to discuss the method by which I challenged 607 BC as a possible year, and to offer logical flaws you've spotted in the argument. You are not welcome to introduce your pet side-issues into this thread.

  The posts from you are expected to be on topic. References to other documents must relate back to the contents of the Hillah Stele in some way to be considered on topic. All of your posts in this thread must be consistent with advancing the discussion regarding the Hillah Stele. As you correctly stated, the Hillah Stele does not establish 587 BC. Therefore, you have already conceded that any reference to 587 BC in this discussion would be an off topic comment. I expect you to be mindful of your own admission.

  Are we clear? Can you do it? I am doubtful, but we will see.

  AuldSoul
• 

  thirdwitness

  We are clear.
• 

  AuldSoul

  james_woods,

  There isn't one that discusses the Hillah Stele. He said:

  I know the WTS has address the Nab's mother chronicle and its inconsistencies.

  The WTS has not addressed any "inconsistencies" in the Adda-Guppi Stele, it has only discussed discrepancies between the Adda-Guppi Stele and Ptolemy's canon. Elsewhere, the WTS challenges the veracity of Ptolemy's canon (at very best, a secondary document), but it is apparently of sufficient evidenciary weight to challenge a contemporary, primary document.

  Where a primary document conflicts with later derivations, the later derivations are regarded as flawed, not the other way around. Either way, the Watchtower Society never challenges the veracity of the statement I referenced from the Adda-Guppi Stele and really did not demonstrate any inconsistencies in the stele itself, nor between the stele and Neo-Babylonian Chronology.

  It remains, the 16th regnal year of Nabopolassar was 54 years prior to 555 BC (i.e. 609 BC). It remains, 609 BC to 539 BC is 71 years. It remains, the secular Neo-Babylonian chronology accounts for every one of these years perfectly. It remains, Nabopolassar's 18th regnal year was 607 BC. It remains, 607 BC can be absolutely excluded as a possible year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple on the weight of this evidence.

  And that is all this thread is designed to conclusively establish: 607 BC could NOT have been the correct date. I am curious whether thirdwitness is capable of a purely logical discussion of NB data. I rather think not, but we will see.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Since it has been shown that there was indeed a WT publication discussing the aforementioned inscription I will throw the last question you posed right back at you.

  thirdwitness
  I think you should be more gracious here. Not only because you yourself didn't provide any reference, but more importantly the WT CD and the specific article failed to mention the artifact by name (why?). How can anyone easily find the reference? I knew what I was looking for and had to read through a few articles other articles to find it.

  That article didn't provide any substantial counterpoints to AuldSoul's argument anyways. Lets consider pertinent information.

  It remains, the 16th regnal year of Nabopolassar was 54 years prior to 555 BC (i.e. 609 BC). It remains, 609 BC to 539 BC is 71 years. It remains, the secular Neo-Babylonian chronology accounts for every one of these years perfectly. It remains, Nabopolassar's 18th regnal year was 607 BC. It remains, 607 BC can be absolutely excluded as a possible year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple on the weight of this evidence.

  Any counterpoints?
• 

  thirdwitness

  I think the WT did indeed show inconsistencies. First off you note that there is another copy of adad-guppi. Have you taken note that the interpretation made on each do not agree with each other?
• 

  thirdwitness

  Seems someone was trying to cover over some mistakes or miscalculations.
• 

  james_woods

  "I think the wT did indeed show inconsistencies..."

  so, NAME THEM.

  Lawyering up on the "rules" will not convince me - just the facts of the WT reference, which we can easily check for ourselves.

  PS, it would help if the WT explanation actually made sense, or has the slightest ring of consistent truthy in logic about it.

  And I will ask another thing - why does this particular date really make so darn much difference? Ordinary scholars don't have any "prophetic" axe to grind on it being that very year; they are just going on best evidence.

  James