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

by AuldSoul 124 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    thirdwitness,

    You have already succeeded in sidetracking the discussion severely into irrelevancy. Let me refresh your memory as to my initial question:

    None of this has anything to do with a Watchtower Society viewpoint, as they have chosen to never publicly acknowledge the existence of the Hillah Stele (with very good reason). Without getting sidetracked from the secular data available regarding the Hillah Stele, why should I not credit the conclusion I reached as a valid one absent direct primary evidences to the contrary?

    I highlighted my question so it will be easy for you to find. Can you answer it directly? Do you dare to?

    AuldSoul

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    ThirdWitness,

    Apart from the questions regarding Biblical inconsistency, and to which I have publicly challenged you to debate on numerous occasions ( without reaction ), might I ask another question?

    Your writing style is erratic and indicative of more more than one person at work on your posts. This is no big issue of course, but I was wondering if you might confirm this. After I noticed the same thing happening with Scholar, he *eventually* admitted that he was being worked as a front-man and that his adviser, an 'elder', was instructing him from behind the scenes. So it does make one wonder.

    HS

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost
    Your writing style is erratic and indicative ;of more more than one person at work on your posts.

    I've noticed that, too. Perhaps it's C&P ?

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    thirdwitless wrote:

    : All the things you said above are basically a repeat of what you have already stated.

    Not at all. Up to that point, I simply refuted everything you said, but had not put the evidence together into a single line of argument. I also added material that I had not spoken of before.

    It's painfully obvious that you're entirely unable to refute anything I've said except by simple declaration: "Tain't so!" JW lurkers, take note of the intellectual cowardice of this self-proclaimed JW defender.

    I added a good deal of important related material as well, which again you're too dishonest to deal with. Like Mommy, like son.

    : One point you make worth noting is that the medes destroyed the temple in Harran. I have never denied that. It is just a question of when it was destroyed.

    There is no question about that. The ancient sources are unanimous.

    : They most certainly could have returned at a later day because they were often in the area fighting in the southeast part of what is now known as Turkey which is in the general area of Harran.

    Where is your evidence?

    Oh, yeah, your 'evidence' is that Watchtower chronology doesn't work if one accepts the ancient sources.

    : I have shown a plausible explanation if the Hillah Stele is indeed accurate.

    No, you have not. You've offered nothing but speculation based on your need to defend Watchtower chronology. That you've run away from a detailed discussion of every single point I've brought up proves it.

    : Since the 2 accounts

    I offered three accounts, you moron.

    : that you offer as proof that the temple was destroyed in the 16th year of Nabopolasser do not actually say that then you make an assumption. The assumption just might be wrong.

    I've clearly demonstrated that this is not an assumption, but a fact. But we all know that you reject the facts when they conflict with Watchtower chronology.

    : Personally I believe it was written based on inaccurate sources as was the Adad-Guppi.

    You have not demonstrated -- using evidence -- that that source is inaccurate.

    : But even if not I have shown you that the Hillah Stele does not conclusively disprove 607.

    Nonsense. You've offered nothing but pure speculation and no evidence whatsoever.

    : This is something you and your friends fail to show about the 40 year desolation of Egypt.

    More nonsense. All you've done with that is to claim, "I'm just taking God at his Word and assuming that Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled as written." But you hypocritically fail to "take God at his Word" in plenty of other places in the Bible. Why? Because secular evidence demands it. Yet you reject all of the secular evidence that proves that Egypt was never desolated in the 6th century B.C. Thus your stance is nothing but special pleading and self serving.

    The fact that you know your stance is hypocritical is proved by the fact that you're deathly afraid of tackling my proof of the above points in my thread, "Why the Watchtower Society Interprets Genesis Non-Literally" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/118096/1.ashx ). You know all too well that it exposes the Watchtower Society's hypocrisy and double standards in its own claims to "take God at his Word".

    : You failed to show how that 40 year desolation does not disprove 587 when it clearly does.

    We will leave readers to judge that for themselves.

    : My explanation of the uninspired Hillah Stele is far more believeable than any explanations you and your cronies offered on the 40 year desolation.

    LOL! "Speculation is far more believable than actual evidence!" Yes, that about sums up Watchtower philosophy, alright.

    : AlanF: 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 was ruined, even destroyed.

    : And by the way, you have just done what you accused me of doing. Combining two different inscriptions to form one.

    I never accused you of that. You're a liar.

    : And yours is a blatant deceitful error. The Sipar Cylinder does not state that it was in the 16th year of Nabopolasser.

    I never said it did.

    : By combining two different sources you attempt to deceive. It has not gone unoticed by JW lurkers.

    The Sippar Cylinder states: "(Sin) became angry with that city [Harran] and temple [Ehulhul]. He aroused the Medes, who destroyed that temple and turned it into ruins." All of the evidence we have about any such destruction by the Medes is contained in ancient sources like this, that all point to Nabonidus' 16th year. You've offered no evidence-based refutations for taking these sources at face value. Once again all you've set forth is speculation based on your need to defend Watchtower chronology. Evidence in favor of your speculation would be something like showing that the Medes attacked Harran twice -- but you have nothing of the kind.

    All in all, thirdwitless, you're doing a bang up job of showing the lengths of braindeadness to which a JW defender will go to defend Watchtower nonsense. You do not respect God's Word, contrary to what you claim, because you accept secular evidence when convenient and reject it at a whim. Please keep up the good work!

    AlanF

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    If the wildly fictional story known as HIllah stele is really true it is not speculation at all to say when the temple in Harran was destroyed. It was destroyed as you say in 609. But 609 according to the chronology the Bible gives is not the 16th year of Nabo but rather about the 16th/17th year of Neb. It is really that simple although you refuse to see that because you deny what the Bible clearly says about the 70 year desolation of Judah, 40 year desolation of Egypt, 70 years of Tyre, and other bible proof. The reason you deny these is because you put secular chronology interpretations above the Bible.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    thirdwitness: The reason you deny these is because you put secular chronology interpretations above the Bible.

    I put the interpretation of secular experts above the interpretations of self-appointed Bible "experts" who have no credentials whatsoever in their chosen field of "expertise." These Bible "experts" came into their field of "expertise" with a slew of preconceptions about their authority to speak as "experts" on the Bible. These preonceptions had to be upheld as factual in order to maintain their claim to expertise.

    Whereas, secular experts have credentials and no vested interest in deceiving anyone by means of their interpretations of secular data. And secular experts regard the Bible as secular data, as well, meaning they do not care whether their interpretations support or detract from a religious interpretation.

    Whereas your Bible interpretation "experts" cannot even Scripturally demonstrate their religion's requirements for baptism. Yeah, I think I trust those who are impartial over those who routinely make up "Scriptural" requirements in God's name and state (without proof) that the Bible teaches the requirements. Please forgive my use of my brain.

    AuldSoul

  • sir82
    sir82
    Whereas, secular experts have credentials and no vested interest in deceiving anyone by means of their interpretations of secular data.

    Hah! Here's where 3rd Witness is gonna get ya!

    Of course secular experts have vested interest in deceiving you! They are agents of Satan! Satan blinds the minds of every last scholar on earth who is not one of Jehovah's true Christian servants.

    I'll just excuse myself to get another bag o' popcorn...

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    ThirdWitness,

    The reason you deny these is because you put secular chronology interpretations above the Bible.

    Put it another way. The Bible is an unreliable book where it comes to chronology, history and science, hence it flawed as a manual for historial chronology.

    Perhaps we might debate this issue of Biblical reliability? If I were to able to show you that the Bible was indeed unreliable for the purpose you are using it, then the whole 607BCE, 40 year desolation etc., etc., debates become uneccessary and will save us all much time.

    Are you up to this challenge or not?

    HS

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Thirdratewitness writes:

    “If the wildly fictional story known as HIllah stele is really true it is not speculation at all to say when the temple in Harran was destroyed. It was destroyed as you say in 609. But 609 according to the chronology the Bible gives is not the 16th year of Nabo but rather about the 16th/17th year of Neb. It is really that simple although you refuse to see that because you deny what the Bible clearly says about the 70 year desolation of Judah, 40 year desolation of Egypt, 70 years of Tyre, and other bible proof. The reason you deny these is because you put secular chronology interpretations above the Bible.”

    Translation:

    Since the Hillah Stele contradicts something my mommy told me, it cannot possibly be true.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul

    Marvin, you crack me up!

    AuldSoul

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit