Ebabbar Cylinder 2:14 — A JW email "explaining" its significance...

by AuldSoul 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hillary_step

  Alan,

  The buggered English is extremely reminiscent of that of Fred Hall. I wonder if your "buddy" is good old Fridolin in disguise.

  Interesting observation. Fred Hall could stray from grammatical chaos to the rather succinct post at the twist of his tail.

  I am convinced that these JW apologists seldom work alone, but with a number of advisers, hence the erratic nature of many of the posts. I eventually pressed Scholar into admitting that he actually had a puppet master working him, an elder who is an 'expert' in the area of chronology. I do not doubt that ThirdWitness is actually working from a similar scenario.You know how it goes, 'Good morning, my friend and I are calling on our neigbours wishing to bamboozle them on matters of Biblical chronology that they have never even heard of, and eventually wish they never had'.

  HS
• 

  AuldSoul

  An AnnOmalous tipster () has just informed me that these very arguments were tentatively put forward on a few forums by none other than Rolf Furuli (or however he spells his name) but that he abandoned them once exposed to argumentation. However, these are purportedly going to be included in his book, version 2. I haven't read his version 1 yet, nor Jonsson's works (which, I am given to understand, forms the wall against which Furuli insists on smashing his head).

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  AlanF

  No surprise, AuldSoul. Fred Hall is nothing if not Furuli's lap dog. Kind of reminds me of that poor dog that keeps winning the Ugliest Dog In the World contest.

  AlanF
• 

  AnnOMaly

  AuldSoul - you blabbermouth!

  This is the thread Furuli's comments were originally posted on:

  http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2111&reply=16#msg16

  'Al' had copied and pasted them, but were removed after 'Jimspace' said they were copyrighted. Comments meant for the 'public' were posted instead and these are the ones that also appear on the '607' site that T-wit often refers to. I don't think that Furuli had his original essay critiqued and that was the reason he had it removed - it was only on the net for about 2 days maximum - blink and it'd gone. My personal theory is that Furuli emailed both versions privately to somebody and the wrong one finished up on the net. But even my untrained eye could spot errors and other problems so it's just as well it was withdrawn.
• 

  Jeffro

  I am convinced that these JW apologists seldom work alone, but with a number of advisers, hence the erratic nature of many of the posts.

  Funny you should say that. On my googling, I found the following page (it is a Google-cached copy; the original page is no longer available)

  http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:xDGHRtpu_c0J:www.ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/VAT4956.html%3Flastpost%3D1140644779+vat4956+e-watchman&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=2
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Scattered observations:

  AuldSoul's email guy said:

  "One problem is that in his 2nd year reign Nabonidus stated to restore the temples. One temple he restored was in Ebabbar. According to the Ebabbar cyclinder 2.14, it says "During 52 years the walls of this temple fell down and it became useless". If this cyclinder is correct, then there are problems."

  The Ebabbar cylinder also said, "During 45 years the walls of this temple fell down" (2.12), and "48 [45? - there's some dispute] years were not full when its walls fell down" (2.13).

  My question: Given that the Ebabbar temple in Sippar comprised of several buildings - it was a complex rather than one single structure, and that the different buildings were in various states of decay - did kings like Nebuchadnezzar and others only restore certain parts of the temple?

  AuldSoul's email guy:

  "Also, here is another problem. King Nebuchadnezzar began to restored the temples at least 6 years after he began to rule. So, Nabonidus really put wrench in the chronology there. Here is why, lets say that Nebuchadnar begun to ruled in line with 2nd year of Nabonidus (total 51 years, etc). Then we must add 6 more years with some else. Why? Because Nebuchadnazzer began to restore the temple at least 6 years after he ruled as king."

  If we take the figure '45,' that would make it the 6th year of Neb when the temple was restored.

  The objection has been raised (Furuli) that it took 3 years for Nabonidus to find the original foundation of the E'ulmas temple (also in Sippar), so Neb would have had to have begun the Ebabbar restoration some years earlier, which would have been unlikely since he was busy with campaigns and wars. But I ferreted out little bits on the net that said Neb and Nabonidus had different 'restoration styles' so to speak. Nabonidus liked to spend time and effort digging down to find the original foundation stones, while Neb didn't go to all that trouble. In fact, one inscription says (didn't make a note of the webpage dammit) that Neb couldn't find the original Ebabbar foundation at all.

  Having said that, even though Nabonidus went to more painstaking lengths, CM53 says that Nabonidus completed the Ebabbar restoration in his 2nd year, even though he only discovered the foundation in the 7th month. In addition, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, Neb wasn't on any campaigns but was in his homeland in his 5th year and rode out on a battle campaign in month 10 of his 6th year. Therefore, if Nabonidus is said to have restored and consecrated Ebabbar on its original foundations within a 5 month period in his 2nd year, it's feasible that Neb (having not gone to the same lengths) could have restored the temple within 9 months of his 6th year.

  It also appears that Neb's dad, Nabopolassar, restored Ebabbar at some point, but I cannot find out when he did so.