[b-hebrew] asherah (purim???)

rob acosta robacosta at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 20 14:25:29 EDT 2012











 Mr Stinehart

You wrote:
"The early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives hated Abdi-Ashirta,> because his successor, Aziru [Biblical ?Amraphel? at Genesis 14: 1] of> Amurru, iniquitously sold out the Amorite state of Amurru [northern> Lebanon] to the dreaded Hittites in Year 14. That?s ?the iniquity of the> Amorites? at Genesis 15: 16."
     This is nothing more than blatant lie as any student of that period tell you. It is in my view  nothing short of a hoax.   What is notable is you continue to call scholars whose conclusions undermine your theory liars or incompetents and this the audience should always consider when your posts appear.    For instance,as recently noted, when Mr Kitchen concludes EA letter 155, written by Abi Milki, was his last letter written about 2 years after the Syrian War,making your claims about Year 14 impossible you essentially call Mr Kitchen incompetent..and not on your level.. You claim Labayu was in control of parts of Canaan in Year 12 of Akhenaten forcing, in your view, Abraham to move west. But when it is shown that commissioner Pawuru, who appears in Jerusalem in EA 287 after the death of Labayu and then is reported killed in EA 131 not very long after the death of Abdi Asirta, proving Labayu died before Abdi ashirta in the time of Amenophis lll and could not possibly have lived in Year 12 (you also falsely, and hilariously claimed Pawuru only served under Akhenaten) you then basically assert the Amarna letters themselves are wrong and attack scholars such as EF CAmpbell and Murnane as well.   The audience should be made aware that you have even dismissed the chronology of Suppiluliumas written in his own words, calling the King of the Hittites unreliable,  as well as the treaties he wrote between Aziru and Ugarit whose chronologies of events contradict your Hoax.The audience should be aware that you will go to any length to promote your hoax, perhaps the mostblatantexample was to claim all historians who say Aitakama, leader of Qadesh, was not captured by Suppiluliumas near the end of the Syrian War and held captive for about a year ,..no, you claim all scholars are liars and that Aitakama was taken in some secret raid unrecorded by history, a year before the War so as to fit your belief Aitakama was one of the 4 against five referred to in Genesis....a key element of your theory as you claim he and Aziru were part of the 4 against 5one of the most ridiculous claims of all time.      This claim, perhaps more than any other, demonstrates you have no boundaries you will not cross,no historical rewrite you will not make, no scholar you will not denigrate or ridicule in defense of your hoax.   You may on occasion back track a little, you did back down on you oft repeated claimQatna was so utterly destroyed by Suppiluliumas it cannnot be found today and was the model for Sodom. You backtracked when it was show tourists visit Qatna every day, that it was never destroyedand that Idanda was king at the time and not Akizzi of the Amarna letters. But soonyou revert to your familiar mantra like a broken record, showing that historical facts mean nothing to you.    Now you have gone after Mr Cohen and others in a disrespectful way and repeating your hoaxclaims about Aziru, etc. as if this hoax and lie proves your view about Asherah.    There is only one conclusion possible. As you base all you views on a hoax then all of subsequenttheories are false.    Rob Acosta



 		 	   		  


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list