The revisions in the Greek timeline will affect Egyptian timeline for this
period and back to the invasion by ****shak. Early dating from the 18th
Dynasty back are not affected by this revision/correction.
===================================
It's difficult, with all the fake do***ents and coverups to challenge the
present secular dating for the NB Period, very set into place by
astronomical texts and Ptolemy's canon. It's hard to convince scholars
that
the Bible's timeline must prevail.
Plus COJ himself has presented lots of evidence sup****ting the current
timeline, evidence that must be claimed by those following the strict
Biblical chronology where the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455 BCE, have to
claim
are "fake" and "revised" and there was a "conspiracy"! But that doesn't go
over very well. Even though the VAT4956 itself has the correct dating for
year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar in 511 BCE.
So now there is a NEW FOCUS! You see, the extra years that were added that
distort the current timeline, were added partly by Xernophon who added 58
years to the Greek timeline. He was paid by the Persian government to
revise
Thucydides and he enlisted the help of Plato and Plato's students to
reconstruct the timeline.
Therefore, if you expose Xenophon's revisions to the secular timeline,
when
the 58 years are removed from the Greek timeline, the entire timeline will
immediately self-correct, making the Biblical and secular timelines
completely in-sync.
To keep things simple, I'm creating [b]THE LIST. [/b] It will be 10
interesting discrepancies from the Classical Greek Period that help
confirm
the timeline was expanded. Once the Greek timeline is considered to be
unreliable, then the astro-corrected timeline already in place will become
the official new SECULAR TIMELINE.
Since JWs made the mistake of relying upon the secular timeline,
ultimately,
for their current dating, namely, 539 BCE as a "pivotal date" for the fall
of Babylon, they will be forced like the rest of the world to adjust that
event when the Greek timeline falls. That's easier than arguing with COJ
and
the WTS over tablets dated to "year 51 of Artaxerxes", which could be
fake,
erroneous, or misunderstood.
I want a nice list of ten good ones. This is what I have so far.
1. The Delian Problem. Plato is consulted 3 years before he was born. When
corrected, he is 55 years old.
2. Plato's mother has to be 60 years old when Plato is born if his two
older
brothers are close to the age of Socrates, who is currently 41 years older
than Plato. When the timeline is corrected, Socrates is only 7 years older
than Plato (435 vs 428 BCE).
3. The PPW eclipse. Doesn't work for 431 BCE as a total eclipse that
caused
the stars to come up with just a crest remaining. It does match 402 BCE,
however, allowing us to specifically redate the PPW based on this eclipse.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/431-402BCE.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/403darkcomp.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/402-431eclipses.GIF
This specific redating allows alignment with the 455 BCE chronology!
4. In Plato's "Republic" the host of a discussion is Cephalus who dies "in
430 BCE" in the second year of the PPW. Thus this event must occur before
the war begins and at a time when Socrates and Plato's brothers are young
men. Historians are trying to date this to 429 BCE or 413 BCE, which is
after the current dating! This is resolved when the war is moved to 403
BCE.
5. Bandis/Artemis dating. Again, Plato's "Republic" occurs the first year
the goddess Bandis/Artemis is introduced. Scholars have tried to date this
and date it either in 429 or 413 BCE, but both dates are after the PPW
begins now in 431 BCE. This event must occur before the death of Cephalus
who is present who dies in the 2nd year of the war. Again, a chronology
problem.
6. ARCHYTAS! Said to have known people who died before he was born. Also
he
solves "The Delian Problem" of doubling he cube, adding credibility to the
legend that Plato assigned him the challenge when charged with this task
in
the first year of the PPW when a plague broke out.
Here's just an example of how fun the life of Archytas is:
[quote]In the middle of the fifth century, when the Pythagorean meeting
place in the house of mIlo at Croton was attacked (ca. 454), the only two
Pythagoreans to escape, Lysis and Archippus, were Tarentines; Archippus is
re****ted to have fled to Tarentum (Iamb. VP 250). Aristoxenus tells us
that,
after this attack on the Pythagoreans, all the Pythagoreans left Italy
except Archytas (Iamb. VP 250=A6b). THIS RE****T ODDLY ASSOCIATES ARCHYTAS
WITH EVENTS TWENTY TO THIRTY YEARS BEFORE HIS BIRTH....[/quote]
ROFL!!! I know!! But obviously, removing the extra 58 years would resolve
this! This is typical evidence of expansionism.
7. HIPPOCRATES. This is a double whammy. For one, Hippocrates is supposed
to
be older than Socrates, and two, his writings cover a period of over 100
years! Thus it is thought he could not have written all of them. Either
way,
you have to take the last 50 or the first years, right? This, of course,
is
the result of Hippocrates being right in the middle of the expansion
period.
This is resolved when the extra years are removed.
Here's the quote about being older than Socrates. Right now Hippocrates is
born in 460 and Socrates in 479; Socrates was actually born in 435 BCE, 32
years before the PPW begins in 403 BCE.
[quote]Aulus Gellius, a Roman rhetorician of the second century A.D., puts
it this way:
Then the great Peloponnesian War began in Greece, which Thucydides has
handed down to memory...During that period Sophocles, and later Euripides,
were famous and renowned as tragic poets, Hippocrates as a physician, and
as
a philosopher, Democritus; Socrates the Athenian was [u][b]younger[/b][/u]
than these, but was in part their contem****ary. ([i]Noctes Atticae
XVII.21,
16-18[/i])[/quote]
Everybody's ages will likely be adjusted a little, but Socrates must have
been sufficiently younger than Hippocrates to deserve this mention,
perhaps
15-20 years younger at least.
8-9: The issues related to Aristotle and Socrates being lovers. Basically,
Aristotle quoting from Socrates and mentioning him in his works up to 80
times. The similarities between "Phaedo" and Aristotle. Both orphaned at
10,
both raised by someone teaching them philosophy, and both turned over to
Plato at age 18. Socrates dies in 366 BCE per corrected chronology which
is
when Aristotle (b. 484 BCE) would have been 18 as well. Too many
coincidences. Phaedo was said to be very handsome, and so was Aristotle
(he
has several busts on the net on display if you Google "Aristotle"). The
invention of "Phaedo" was necessary once Socrates was moved back in time
and
dies in 399 BCE, some 15 years before Aristotle is born, so a substitute
lover for Socrates had to be created. This is an interesting
pseudo-cryptic
confirmation that Aristotle and Phaedo were the same person:
[quote]A story is told of Plato giving a reading of his Phaedo, a
pur****ted
record of Socrates' last day. The dialogue is moving and solemn. As Plato
was reading, however, his audience gradually melted away. In the end,
Aristotle alone was left. Probably fictitious, the anecdote was invented
to
express a truth: Aristotle was, in fact, spellbound by the Socratic
doctrine
of immortality as expounded by Plato. It not only interested him
intellectually but also absorbed him emotionally.[/quote]
Of course, our focus is on the fact that this links Phaedo specifically to
Aristotle. Why was he so interested? Why did this legend get mentioned so
much? Was it a cryptic understanding that in reality Phaedo was the
invented
character of Aristotle himself?!!! Of course, Aristotle is enthralled,
it's
HIM!!
10. Xenophon is easily seen as the redactor of Thucydides, some saying he
actually became the publisher of Thucydides. He's connected with Persian
influence and history because he wrote [i]Cyropaedia [/i]("The Education
of
Cyrus") which is the history of Cyrus, the Persian. WHY? Why is this Greek
historian, the only one whose complete works survive be so interested in
Persian history? Obviously, the Persians had plenty of money to pay for
this, including for the help from Plato and Aristotle to revise their
records. But also, Persia played in Greek politics and Persia was
pro-Spartan as was Xenophon. So there was that political angle inducement
as
well that must be considered. But also, of note, Xenophon claims to have
been present at the famous "Symposium" which at this time would have made
him around 8 years old! This has been commented on by historians...
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/copy2a.JPG
Xenophon also implies he knew Socrates when both were young which
contradicts Socrates being now 40 years older than Xenophon. But, again,
as
a red flag for revisionism, this suggests years were ADDED to the
timeline.
When Socrates is moved down in time 28 years then he is still older than
Xenophon but only by 6 years, thus both could have been adults at the time
of the Symposium.
Of note, Plato and Xenophon both provide a history of the "Symposium" and
other dialogues of Socrates. WHY? Are they preserving or "editing"? This
links the two of them to masterful revisionism for this period, easily
explained by MONEY. Plato was poor early on, even being sold into slavery
at
one point. Then suddenly he has enough money to open an "academy" in his
later years? And so does Aristotle? They were poor to begin with, but rich
in the end.
SUMMARY: You can't ignore all these discrepancies without suspecting
something is wrong or revisionism. But as SOON as you even contemplate it,
the alternative timeline becomes theoretically an academic issue. At this
point, though, the entire adjustment of the Persian and Neo-Babylonian
timelines has already been set in place!
That is, as soon as the Greek historians realize they have to remove these
58 years and start wondering how to adjust the Persian and NB Period and
Assyrian Period, it has ALREADY BEEN DONE by redated astronomical key
events.
1. The 431 BCE eclipse is a better match to 402 BCE, beginning the PPW in
the summer 403 BCE. This redates ****shak's invasion to 424 BCE, where
another eclipse in the spring is confirmed by Herodotus. The Battle of
Salamis is 10 years earlier in 434 BCE, the year the temple was completed,
21 years after it began. This dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE!
Artaxerxes
also dies in the 8th year of the war after 41 years, which means he began
his rule in 437 BCE. This is 2 years after Darius I begins his rule in 439
BCE, meaning the two were co-rulers for 4 years from 437-433 BCE. Darius
dies at Marahon and Artaxerxes finishes the buildings at Persepolis.
Darius
only finishes his palace which only took two years. But Artaxerxes is just
the second name of Xerxes! We have a do***ent dated to year 38 of
"Artaxerxes also known as Arses(Xerxes)" which can fit no other king. Plus
Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II!! That proves
Artaxerxes
succeeded Darius I as the Bible says! At any rate, Artaxerxes was 18 when
he
came to the throne and Xerxes was said to be born the year his "father"
became king. He was chosen over this brothers because they had begun
calling
him "Prince Xerxes." 18 plus 437 is 455 BCE, the year Cyrus, Xerxes'
grandfather became king. A king****p more significant than that of Darius
I,
since this was when Cyrus took over the entire Medo-Persian empire. Thus
you
have two references that independently date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.
This aligns the Greek Period perfectly with the Adjusted Persian Period.
From here it gets easy!!
2 & 3: The NB Period is simple to redate with several astronomical texts.
VAT4956: This double-dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE. A
no-brainer.
SK400: This matches the interval for two lunar eclipse to 541 BCE, where
the
interval matches the text of 2:46 but is a mismatch for 523 BCE, 18 years
later, dated to "year 7" of Kambyses. 541 BCE is "year 7" of
Nebuchadnezzar,
the same dating you get with the VAT4956.
THALES ECLIPSE: Thales predicted an eclipse that was negotiated by
Nabonidus. Nabonidus was not ruling in 585 BCE where that eclipse is
currently dated and scientists claim he could not have predicted that
eclipse. But Nabonidus redated from 480-462, with a 2-year sole rule****p,
s****ts an eclipse that goes through Ionia that was predictable by an
eclipse
54 years 1 month earlier in Egypt, which is where Thales did his astronomy
apprentice****p. Therefore, Thales just warned his fellow countryman about
the predicted eclipse he found out from the Egyptians!!
http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html
NABON 18: Another fun comparison. In order to redate the SK400 to 541 BCE,
you must adjust the time of the first eclipse to "one hour before
midnight".
This adjustment must be applied to all other eclipse times. The Nabon 18
s****ts an eclipse that caused a panic as the moon set while "eclipsed"
(dark). The substitute eclipse is a partial one in 454 BCE, year 2 of
Nabonidus, which was all but over by the time the moon sets. Hardly one to
cause a panic. But when the timing is readjusted per the SK400, the
original
eclipse in 479 BCE, year 2 of Nabonidus, is in the last minutes of
totality
when the moon sets! That means the Babylonians would have seen the moon go
total, "turn to blood" and remain that way for 1 hour and 36 minutes
before
the moon then set before beginning recovery! THIS would have caused a
panic!! A TOTAL ECLIPSE that SETS WHILE TOTAL! This caused Nabonidus to
sacrifice his daughter to the service of the Moon god, Sin.
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/479x541J.JPG
ARE WE CONVINCED YET?
In the meantime, the VAT4956 double-dating dismisses all astronomical
texts
aligned to the current timeline as coming out of the Seleucid Period as
revised astrotexts. WHERE ARE THE ORIGINAL ASTRONOMICAL TEXTS? These
should
have numbered into the thousands. We have thousands of other texts from
the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but zero astronomical texts. Yet we know they
existed during the Seleucid Era since we have the SK400 and VAT4956
"copies". Conclusion: Obviously, they were all destroyed during the
Seleucid
Era, after some of them were redated. The VAT4956 and SK400 betray the new
chronology by cryptic references to the original timeline. There are now
five extant copies or fragments of the SK400, proving it was designed to
survive over the times and remain a key to the original chronology that
was
lost via the astronomical texts destroyed during the Seleucid Era.
THE ASSYRIAN EPONYM ECLIPSE: Finally, another easy one, this eclipse dates
the entire Assyrian eponym list now dated to 763 BCE. However, this
requires
the year to begin before the spring equinox, which was a practice by
others
and occasionally by the Assyrians, but not customarily. Normally, the year
begins [b][i]after [/i][/b]the equinox. This eclipse though, was in a
series
of "predictable" eclipses that occured every 54 years and 1 month later in
the same region, only about 11 degrees (550 miles) farther north. Thus the
709 BCE eclipse occuring on July 19 is a better match. Not only does it
fall
in the customary third month of Simanu, it also would have been the third
eclipse in the series seen by Assyria, making it predictable by the timing
and pattern location of the first two eclipses! This would thus represent
likely the first solar eclipse in ancient history that was predicted!!
This,
in turn, would explain why it was mentioned in the Assyrian eponym, which
just references main events for each year in a short reference. This
eclipse
event must have been a major social and civic event to get mentioned. That
fits the cir***stance of a predicted eclipse, which points to 709 BCE as
well! Of course, it does!! It was actually the original eclipse!
Predictable eclipse pattern that even NASA doesn't realize was possible!!
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/4653/709.gif
WE'RE DONE!
Anonymous
Submitted by:
Lars Wilson
(New!) Corrected Timeline Outline:
http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/709guide.html
|
