Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] asherah (purim???)
  • Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:25:29 -0600











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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page