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 abou
t Asherah. There is only one conclusion possible. As you base all you views
on a hoax then all of subsequenttheories are false. Rob Acosta
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
