So what we have are two copies. One has the total coming to 101but says Nab's mother was 104. And goes to the 6th year of Nab . OOOPS. We better correct that. So on the other copy it is changed to the 9th year of Nab. By changing it to the 9th year of Nab, presto 104 years. It all harmonizes. Wow. Do you see any dishonesty here?
thirdwitness and other pseudo-scholars: Let's discuss the Hillah Stele
by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: Have you taken note that the interpretation made on each do not agree with each other?
No. Cite examples, please, particularly any examples that would influence the understanding of the timing of the event described in the Hillah Stele. Absent such examples, demonstrate why the disagreements you know of should influence our confidence in the Adda-Guppi Stele as evidenciary support for the timing of the event described in the Hillah Stele. Thanks.
A question is not a point. A statement is a point. A question is not argumentation it is interrogatory. Try to use statements when attempting to make points. Questions are fine when you are using them rhetorically or seeking information, but are not argumentation.
Please don't sidetrack the discussion to irrelevant side-issues. Your last two posts have nothing to do with the subject under consideration, namely the Hillah Stele. They do not further the discussion in the slightest. And they do not offer rationale in support of any of your opinions. Please rein it in, if you can, we are having an argument here.
AuldSoul
-
AuldSoul
Once again, you are attempting to divert the subject of this thread. Please stop.
I cited Adda-Guppi for one purpose only, its independent reference to the damage done to the temple of Sin at Harran, referred to in the Hillah Stele. If you have something to say that impacts THAT reference, please share it, otherwise keep the sideline argumentation to yourself or start a new thread to discuss it. It doesn't belong here and needlessly confuses the issue under consideration.
BM 21901 refers to the same attack and dates it, independently, to the 16th year of Nabopolassar.
I brought up these documents ONLY for the reference that dates the event described in the Hillah Stele. Your deflectionary attempts are useless here. They will come off as pathetic attempts to hide your ignorance if you persist. Respect for your thoughts will diminish. Fair warning.
AuldSoul
-
thirdwitness
Pardon me. So you only want to talk about Hillah Stele and not all the ones you presented. I guess I misunderstood.
-
AuldSoul
The supporting documents are fine so long as the points relate to the Hillah Stele.
In other words, if you knew that the Adda-Guppi Stele is suspect in what it says regarding the 16th yer of Nabopolassar, you should feel free to jump all over it with both feet. But I do not intend to hash out the merits of this document with you, especially after you have tried to sidetrack thread after thread with off topic posts. If you wish to discuss the merits of the Adda-Guppi Stele, start another thread for the discussion.
This one is about the Hillah Stele, and supporting/detracting statements from primary documents regarding the information contained in the Hillah Stele.
I thought we were "clear"...I hope we are now.
AuldSoul
-
Jeffro
Pardon me. So you only want to talk about Hillah Stele and not all the ones you presented. I guess I misunderstood.
Which part of "Let's discuss the Hillah Stele" were you having trouble with?
-
thirdwitness
Ok, before I present my position could someone please post a link to the Hillah Stele, Adad-Guppi, and the bm chronicle which supports them in their entireties. We do not want anyone claiming that the inscriptions are being misquoted. Of course about all you can find on the internet are the parts that supports the apostates claims that 607 is wrong.
-
AlanF
thirdwitless wrote:
: Of course about all you can find on the internet are the parts that supports the apostates claims that 607 is wrong.
Of course. Academics have good access through normal academic channels, JW-critics know that it's an unassailable disproof of 607, and the miniscule number of JW-defenders who even know about it are afraid to deal with its contents. Why are they afraid? Because Mommy is afraid.
AlanF
-
thirdwitness
Meanwhile...I am really amazed that such pagan stories about the false gods of Babylon are held in such high esteem as if they were equal to the Bible. Normally if someone tells of some event that happens and they include wild stories about their pagan gods and what their gods did you would discredit anything in the story because it is built around falsehoods. But not these Babylonian tales. They are highly esteemed despite this fact. Some even putting them above God's word.
And this, despite the fact that we know nothing about the authors or the copyist except that they were pagans who liked to embellish the accomplishments of their kings and people. We have no idea of their accurately recording information. Take for example the Hillah Stele. By simple changing the 5 to a 7 we have made it 74 years instead of 54 years. Who knows if a copyist changed the figure? Who knows if the original writer wrote what he believed to be the number of years but was inaccurate. Or was writing it in support of the popular chronology in his day. Can anyone say for certain that this was not done since these writings were not inspired of God. Really, we have no idea. Just because the event described was said to occur on an eclipse that could only have happened that year does not mean the figures written down or accurate. By merely inserting whatever number the writer desires he has just proven that his theory is the correct one.
You have asked why doesn't the WT address the Hillah Stele Chronicle. Because they do not need to. There is no need to address every little piece of 'evidence' that secular historians claim disproves 607. Because we know from what the Bible says that 607 is the correct date. While you work from secular evidence and then fit the Bible around that. We start with the Bible and fit the secular evidence around what it says. The Bible evidence is overwhelming as shown in this link.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/default.html
But you want us to put these pagan false stories above the inspired writings of the Bible. Why should we? Time and again the Bible has proven accurate.
And so it is that the WT accurately points out:
as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove that the historical information accompanying it is accurate. Even as Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data, so too, the writers (or copyists) of the astronomical texts of the Seleucid period may have simply inserted in their astronomical texts what was then the accepted, or "popular," chronology of that time. That accepted, or popular, chronology may well have contained errors at the critical points dealt with earlier in this article. To illustrate, an ancient astronomer (or a scribe) might state that a certain celestial event took place in the year that, according to our calendar, would be 465 B.C.E., and his statement may prove correct when accurate computations are made to verify it. But he may also state that the year in which the celestial event took place (465 B.C.E.) was the 21st year of King Xerxes and be entirely wrong. Simply stated, accuracy in astronomy does not prove accuracy in history.
And so since this is the case the WT does not need to disprove every claim made by secular historians. Simply because the original writer or the copyist could have put any number he wants to prove whatever he desires. As in the case I present above where the writer could have wrote 54 or 64 or 74 or whatever date he thought to be accurate or wanted to prove.
But some say what about when there is more than one line of secular evidence that seems to disprove 607? How can they all reach the same inaccurate conclusions. Can it be that the writers definitely did not use the same source of evidence popular in their day. If the source is false and many are using that source then there will be many that reach the same false conclusions. Can anyone say for certain that the Hillah Stele or Adad Stele are based on absolutely accurate information? And that the figures have not been changed? We will show evidence that in the case of Adad-Guppi Stele that the figures were most definitely changed by someone somewhere along the way. If one is changed then how do you know that others weren't also changed. And if future writers are basing their work on the changed inscriptions then they will all reach the same inaccurate conclusions.
However, all of this being said for the sake of onlookers, in the case of the Hillah Stele I will try to assume (although it pangs me greatly) that the inscription is inspired of God. Then I will show that even if it were inspired of God and accurate beyond a doubt it does not disprove 607.
-
Jeffro
I am really amazed that such pagan stories about the false gods of Babylon are held in such high esteem as if they were equal to the Bible. Normally if someone tells of some event that happens and they include wild stories about their pagan gods and what their gods did you would discredit anything in the story because it is built around falsehoods. But not these Babylonian tales. They are highly esteemed despite this fact. Some even putting them above God's word.
Use of the word 'pagan' is merely an ad hominem attack on the source material. The bible has plenty of fanciful things in that are just as unlikely as what is recorded in the 'pagan' accounts.
And this, despite the fact that we know nothing about the authors or the copyist except that they were pagans who liked to embellish the accomplishments of their kings and people. We have no idea of their accurately recording information. Take for example the Hillah Stele. By simple changing the 5 to a 7 we have made it 74 years instead of 54 years. Who knows if a copyist changed the figure? Who knows if the original writer wrote what he believed to be the number of years but was inaccurate. Or was writing it in support of the popular chronology in his day. Can anyone say for certain that this was not done since these writings were not inspired of God. Really, we have no idea. Just because the event described was said to occured on an eclipse that could only have happened that year does not mean the figures written down or accurate. By merely inserting whatever number the writer desires he has just proved that his theory is the correct one.
But why would some copyist - completely by coincidence - change the figure from something consistent with JW dogma to something that is completely consistent with all other known history (including the bible)? Try again, thirdwitness.
You have asked why doesn't the WT address the Hillah Stele Chronicle. Because they do not need to. There is no need to address every little piece of 'evidence' that secular historians claim disproves 607. Because we know from what the Bible says that 607 is the correct date. While you work from secular evidence and then fit the Bible around that. We start with the Bible and fit the secular evidence around what it says. The Bible evidence is overwhelming as shown in this link.
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/default.htmlI have indicated many errors in that document. See previous posts. Of course, you don't "fit the secular evidence" at all, you merely ignore most of it. Additionally, many scriptures on their own punch holes in the 607 dogma. But for brevity, I will mention just three. Jeremiah 25:12 indicates that the 70 years were not of Jewish exile. Ezekiel 40:1 indicates that the exile was not enumerated from Jerusalem's destruction. Ezra 3:1 indicates that the Jews returned in Cyrus' first year, the 7th month of which is known to have fallen in 538, not 537.
But you want us to put these pagan false stories above the inspired writings of the Bible. Why should we? Time and again the Bible has proven accurate.
Tell me, then, how Baasha came up against Judah 10 years after he died (1Kings 16:6-8; 2 Chronicles 16:1). Obviously, it must be considered that the bible is also subject to error.
And so it is that the WT accurately points out:
So why is that "astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood)" is accepted by the WT as a valid source for the reigns of Cambyses II and Cyrus?
as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove that the historical information accompanying it is accurate. Even as Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data, so too, the writers (or copyists) of the astronomical texts of the Seleucid period may have simply inserted in their astronomical texts what was then the accepted, or "popular," chronology of that time. That accepted, or popular, chronology may well have contained errors at the critical points dealt with earlier in this article. To illustrate, an ancient astronomer (or a scribe) might state that a certain celestial event took place in the year that, according to our calendar, would be 465 B.C.E., and his statement may prove correct when accurate computations are made to verify it. But he may also state that the year in which the celestial event took place (465 B.C.E.) was the 21st year of King Xerxes and be entirely wrong. Simply stated, accuracy in astronomy does not prove accuracy in history.And so since this is the case the WT does not need to disprove every claim made by secular historians. Simply because the original writer or the copyist could have put any number he wants to prove whatever he desires. As in the case I present above where the writer could have wrote 54 or 64 or 74 or whatever date he thought to be accurate or wanted to prove.
If there were only one source for determining those events, you would have a point, but there are simply far too many lines of evidence. From a simply mathematical viewpoint, it is completely improbable that all of the different pieces of evidence would all contain different errors that all coincidentally converge to form agreement with the known chronology of the period.
But some say what about when there is more than one line of secular evidence that seems to disprove 607? How can they all reach the same inaccurate conclusions. Can it be that the writers definitely did not use the same source of evidence popular in their day. If the source is false and many are using that source then there will be many that reach the same false conclusions. Can anyone say for certain that the Hillah Stele or Adad Stele are based on absolutely accurate information? And that the figures have not been changed? We will show evidence that in the case of Adad-Guppi Stele that the figures were most definitely changed by someone somewhere along the way. If one is changed then how do you know that others weren't also changed. And if future writers are basing their work on the changed inscriptions then they will all reach the same inaccurate conclusions.
Of course this is a red herring, as there are literally thousands of other contemporary cuneiform documents which confirm all of the known years of the period, and the chance of there being a contiguous 20-year period missing from those records when there are records for every other year is infinitesimally small.
However, all of this being said for the sake of onlookers, in the case of the Hillah Stele I will try to assume (although it pangs me greatly) that the inscription is inspired of God. Then I will show that even if it were inspired of God and accurate beyond a doubt it does not disprove 607.
Good luck with that.