Biblical Hebrew Forum

[rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>]

 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